Apple requires account deletion within apps in AppStore starting January 31
developer.apple.com
developer.apple.com
Same is true for anything crypto. The account as it were exists on many devices, but it's not something you as the app creator can manage.
I think apple protecting privacy is good, but the effect on actually private systems is complicated.
Deleting the account shouldn't be a problem if all the "account" info is stored on the device itself, so if your reviewers aren't completely incompetent I don't see why this would be a problem.
What you have is partial control of these funds, via instructions to your bank, electronic or otherwise, but since it is merely operated on your behalf, you can't unilaterally delete the account. What you can do, is terminate the relationship with your bank.
Suppose you're an equipment rental service. But you can't delete the customer's account before they return the equipment (or pay for losing it).
Suppose you're a dog kennel. You can't delete the customer's account while you have their dog in your possession.
Suppose you're the parole division of the police department. Can the "customer" delete their "account"?
This is the problem with dictatorial fiat. The world is full of edge cases.
They have specific regulation regarding record retention.
Even just transaction info on a public blockchain is odd to me. It's possible to remain anonymous, but all it takes is one slip-up and then anyone can perform blockchain analysis to trace all sorts of stuff back to me.
Assuming that information is only visible to the owner of the key anyways, then disposing of the key effectively renders that encrypted data as garbage. Not being able to delete it only enables some unknown future attack that can decrypt any data without the key.
If the blockchain survives long enough, that info will become public in time.
There are three pieces, in fact:
1) The device keys - they should never leave the device
2) YOUR private keys - which you should be accessing and managing from multiple devices, and you can have many of these
3) User accounts on networks. This is where you actually authenticated some sessions, and they shouldn’t contain most of your personal info, only info necessary to operate the service.
For example at our company, we have a way for websites to display your name and friends back to yourself, while having no idea what they are. You can manage multiple identities across many services, and choose which to share with friends, and which not, and everything is automated so the Web turns into a social network:
A new version of Scuttlebutt allows tombstoning too.
I think mutable should be the default. Make it all ephemeral with optional permanence.
AES is considered "resistant" in that quantum does an effective square-rooting of the brute forcing effort (or if you prefer, halving of the binary key length). So, do not use anything under AES 256.
Asymmetric algorithms fall apart though, which is why NIST has had a multi-year effort to select new standardized asymmetric algorithms.
You could probably get away with signing an “implode” message and appending it to the tree, instructing any conforming client to wipe the account upon receipt (or at least cease to retransmit). That would give users the option to request their data be removed.
That's kinda the whole point :).
The information is not deleted per se, but it is not usable anymore. Now, if you have access to new means that allow you to break the encryption, then yeah it could be a problem.
If that's the case, does it not run foul of GDPR?
The issue is with Apple being Apple as usual.
maybe for you, but there are use cases...
¹: All of them are silly, or could be done better with something else, but that's not relevant to the point I'm trying to make.
There’s a lot of arguments that people will make about whether this is justified or not, but from a plain rules standpoint, that’s not a permissible data management strategy if you want to publish an iOS app through Apple’s store.
If you do not implement account creation, then you're unlikely to be held responsible for account deletion, as a user would reasonably understand that your app is not responsible for creation or deletion of accounts.
EDIT: Elsethread, someone asked "What if I create accounts on the blockchain?", and since it's possible you'll come around to that idea next — the app would have to interact directly with the blockchain, so you'd probably get rejected for a whole array of reasons, such as but not limited to that you're storing account data on the blockchain. And I wouldn't envy you trying to explain why you shouldn't be continuously fined for GDPR violation in the EU, either.
That said, I would argue that there is no Ethereum "account" - it's just a crypto key. In that sense, use on Ethereum is similar to someone using an email address to sign up for mailing lists and to post on forums.
The counter-argument is that your wallet app likely provides the interfaces to do that functionality, which makes the Ethereum blockchains a proper system under consideration.
The post you're replying to says Apple believe it should. Unless you can persuade Apple to change their policy, it won't matter if you disagree.
(I’ll give you that Safari isn’t in the App Store but many other browsers are. It would viewed as anti-competitive for Apple to remove all competing browsers.)
The 'account' consists of the credentials required to add or modify data associated with a human.
In that case, the person deleting their private key would suffice for deleting an account.
There are plenty of things this doesn't cover, or even backfires. Just interested in what other perspectives people may have.
---
Scuttlebutt actually could allow for 'deletion' in the sense that a 'compliant' scuttlebutt client could choose to interpret a 'delete this account' message as a filter for any messages that match said public key. Many client's UX understand that the state of messages may be incomplete due to the P2P nature, so thats kinda nice too.
I’m planning to add a “delete my account” POST form, in the logged-in app.
I assume this will be fine.
Seems like a case where in 2021 this rule is good, but blocks the creation of new business/product/tools that don't confirm with the 2020 way of thinking... which is good for apple.
Well if you follow the GDPR: yes. Article 17.2
> Where the controller has made the personal data public and is obliged pursuant to paragraph 1 to erase the personal data, the controller, taking account of available technology and the cost of implementation, shall take reasonable steps, including technical measures, to inform controllers which are processing the personal data that the data subject has requested the erasure by such controllers of any links to, or copy or replication of, those personal data.
This is just not possible for a lot of data like SSB.
How would you do this if someone asked github to delete all their commits across repos?
Putting PII or UGC into immutable storage is poor design, unfortunately, both users and laws want this information destroyable.
But in your case I’m not sure what exactly is the problem other than Apple doesn’t believe you… you can still delete the account it’s just deleted locally.
And you may be required to delete any server side identifiers if such exist.
Can't the app be reset to a state as if it was just installed ?
If such data exists in an app under control of the user, then uninstallation is fine.
If you persist that data in your own systems, you must provide a way to withdraw that consent. Same with data shared with third parties.
If you create an account in first party systems, you must provide a way to delete that account.
If the account is created outside the app (say via your website), thats fine, but you may get the same regulatory pressures directly (from GDPR, from California, etc) to support deletion in the same context.
I went in via the normal support chat, said I wanted to cancel, and was immediately redirected to one. It was an outright lie.
I can just go into the Google Play store and terminate the subscription for the NYTimes on Android in one click.
The law needs to be that you can cancel all recurring payments through a standard interface. It's ludicrous that my online banking account doesn't just show me all subscriptions and allow me to cancel all future payments of any of them.
I signed up for a trial for another service which shall remain unnamed, and of course I couldn’t find anywhere on the site to cancel my trial once I wanted to. No problem, I just disabled the card. They’ve probably tried to bill me a dozen times since.
Privacy.com is free, but I’d pay quite a bit of money for it, it has saved me hundreds of dollars.
Careful. If you didn’t properly terminate the contract, you still owe that money. I have a friend whose credit got hit because a service sold his debt to a collector.
I live in California and would have tried cancelling online but actually couldn’t find the option. I can’t say it was difficult to cancel though once I picked a process and initiated it. Maybe that was the online option now that I think about it? I was expecting a button or link.
> I live in California and would have tried cancelling online but actually couldn’t find the option
The chatbox is the online option.
Canada was the first to require simple unsubscribe for email lists... I'm surprised it still does not have a law to require online unsubscribe for media subscriptions.
Newspaper editorial endorsements are still a big thing in Canada.
> The Globe and Mail operates similarly.
But this is good to know. I was considering swapping another newspaper subscription for a Globe and Mail subscription, but after looking into it, the eventual unsubscribe hassle isn't worth it.
[0]: https://support.privacy.com/hc/en-us/articles/360012288214-F...
Back in one of the days, the PayPal TOOLBAR used to offer this feature, it was really convenient since you were essentially direct drawing from your bank account with it.
Likelihood of Gov doing better seems tied to how much they can get away from Wall St. funding/defunding their re-election campaigns.
Not the cost of facilitating the transaction.
Honestly if you can subscribe with a button you should be able to unsubscribe with a button.
If all else fails, "I was just diagnosed with a terminal illness" or "I am required to report to the state penitentiary on Monday" will work.
Alternatively, if the US legal system allows it and you can find a number: Fax. This has the advantage that it can be automated on your end so it's not much more hassle than a quick e-mail, and the delivery receipt (yes, trivially spoofable in theory, but I would assume it's widely accepted in practice) also shows what the content of the message was.
I was expecting a painful process based on what I'd read on HN and Reddit but it was just a couple of clicks.
There's probably a startup idea around unsubscribing from difficult companies but legislation and rules in general are likely more effective.
I only realized after hanging up how little sense this makes.
MANY people tie things like password resets to your email, not to you and may not have a retail store presence you can get to for a password reset.
He's telling you - once this email is gone, it is gone and no one, including you will get it again. That is good in the sense that no one can impersonate you, but bad if you have an "ooops" moment and want to do a password reset that needs that email.
Apple's announcement says:
must also allow users to initiate deletion of their account from within the app.
It's only "initiate" deletion, so if we treat that as Step #1, then if Step #2 is, as in the NYT example, to ring support to confirm your intention to delete you account, then this may not deter much user-hostile behavior. It just kind of smears it to a different part of the tablecloth.
It also specifically says 'deletion' rather than cancellation or disablement, but I doubt Apple are going to follow up on this eventual deletion (or alternative watered-down definition) of account past this "initiate" step.
Will users have recourse through Apple if their "initiated" account deletion request goes no further than step #1?
I’d rather it work the way Apple does it than have someone try to recreate a deleted account.
Microsoft, for all its faults, is much better than Apple or Google here.
Businesses take planning and strategy, and these things lead to drop-everything fires.
Economies rely on stability.
> This requirement applies to all app submissions starting January 31, 2022.
Unsure if this means new apps, or includes updates to existing apps. But I bet there'll be a bit more of a grace period if you don't have a new update to push.
Details were very vague at the time and now we know when it will actually start being enforced, but overall it’s more like half a year notice.
However, in this case, they have ended up giving you 6 months and a courtesy reminder.
If you aren’t interested in maintaining your app annually, don’t publish apps on Apple’s store.
Whether or not their level of notice is enough, they’ve been consistent for years in this practice of 3 months notice for significant and breaking changes, and they seem comfortable compelling annual updates from developers. I would not expect them to care that 3 months is difficult in your circumstances, as they assume you’re prepared to maintain your app and proactively keep up with policy changes over time. It sounds like you did not attend to this year’s policy updates and may well have been out of compliance for months now. Fortunately, they offered a grace period rather than just refusing your next bugfix update. Lucky you!
(I am not sympathetic to your situation, because as a user of apps, I am exhausted of crappy apps and bottom-of-the-barrel behaviors from developers. I understand that others may feel otherwise, and that’s fine too, just as long as those feelings do not get in the way of being a responsive app developer.)
That's exactly what I do. I avoid the app stores like the plaque.
> (I am not sympathetic to your situation, because as a user of apps, I am exhausted of crappy apps and bottom-of-the-barrel behaviors from developers. I understand that others may feel otherwise, and that’s fine too, just as long as those feelings do not get in the way of being a responsive app developer.)
I think the word here is 'entitled.' There are a few different groups here:
- Bottom-of-the-barrel scammers, whom I have no sympathy to
- Little kids and amateurs, who might want to put something out and move on
- Graduate students and research projects
- Little not-for-profits
- Internal-use small businesses and enterprise apps, where a they might be developed once and forgotten about for decades (yes, plural)
In my case, I don't need to have an app on the app store, and I don't care for Apple's behavior, so I don't have an app there. That hurts Apple (and you, if you're an iPhone user) more than it does me.
You're also confusing strictness with timelines. I'm all for super-strict policies. Just with:
- Backwards compatibility (e.g. grandfathering) of older apps
- Plenty of notice
I can’t imagine account deletion is straightforward for most of the implementation, even just from a legal standpoint when money changing hands is involved.
I think it’s a complicated enough issue that it should be tackled from the start (which is usually the case) and kept track of as the product/service evolves.
Wonder what that means for third-party HN client apps though, since HN accounts cannot be deleted.
(Android user, can't test it)
https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/hack-for-hacker-news-developer...
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.pranapps.h...
I have no idea what happens to third party apps as Apple doesn't specify.
Hopefully apple makes a more user-friendly announcement about this that will introduce people of the concept of data retention and how "deleting" an account isn't really deleting anything.
Thats the whole point :) Apple is saying they need to or no iphone app.
Capitals mine. So I can allow the initiation of deletion but never actually completely delete the account… and my app complies.
> ...all apps that allow for account creation must also allow users to initiate deletion...
So any third-party client that allows creating an HN account would need to stop. (Are there any?)
Edit: it's only for apps that allow account creation. If you expose the API for account management to third-parties, it would make sense to include account deletion.
The litigation / cases / govt intervention has been on behalf of businesses not consumers. A lot of folks in the "alliance for app fairness" have just horrible billing practices. Understandably, if they can get out of the app store, they can stop you from being able to do things like delete your account or unsubscribe with a few clicks.
A lot of the newspapers make it easy to sign up, but then you have to call to cancel, the same papers that go on and on about how terrible the app store is. There is a REASON people spend fortunes, particularly in the apple app store - it's damn safe to do so in most cases.
I'd agree here, the majority of the policies are likable by consumers.
> The litigation / cases / govt intervention has been on behalf of businesses not consumers.
Consumers don't have millions to throw around on litigation against Apple so it's no surprise the litigation is focused around business cases. On the government intervention side I disagree though, of the very little intervention there has been it has been consumer focused IMO.
In either case there is also some overlap of "business interest" and "consumer interest" even if the vast majority of the time there isn't so blanketing that all litigation has been on behalf of businesses does not imply all litigation is about policies not in consumer interest. And I think the courts have been very conservative on which points are actually acted upon even if there is a bit of a "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" approach to many of the cases.
> A lot of the newspapers make it easy to sign up, but then you have to call to cancel, the same papers that go on and on about how terrible the app store is. There is a REASON people spend fortunes, particularly in the apple app store - it's damn safe to do so in most cases.
If people are truly buying Apple devices because they only want to purchase things from the controlled app store then the availability of alternative app stores wouldn't be a concern, they would simply go unused. The truth is most people don't actually buy the devices for this reason which is why Apple is so afraid to give that singular point of control up.
There is actually a class action suit against Apple regarding anti-trust brought by consumers. Unfortunately, while the suit was filed in 2011, it wasn't until 2019 that the Supreme Court ruled that consumers even do business with Apple in the App Store [0]. So, a lawsuit filed in 2011 was allowed to go forward in 2019. I don't know what methods Apple had used to hold up the case since then.
Apple wanted to be the gatekeeper blocking out harmful apps, fine by me.
Apple then wanting to use that gatekeeper status to steal money from app developers, block apps that compete with apple internal apps, and enforce moral choices on what kinds of apps you can install on your phone, evil by me.
They could have done the former without doing the latter, but they fucked it up, and have to pay the piper.
Priorities matter.
P.S. I do see Apple business model changing to services bringing in some bad behavior associated with that: for instance, push notifications now are used as a spam/marketing mechanism for Apple services similar to Android; iCloud Storage nag is another example.
An extremely beneficial policy for the customers, right.
In theory Apple sign-in is great. In reality, many apps now show several login options (Google, FB, Apple, e-mail) and I can't remember which one I used.
I've had many instances of trying to login with Apple, the app silently throws an error, and the app won't proceed. E-mail pw reset doesn't work. Did I use Apple Sign-In with my real e-mail or a forwarded (private) e-mail? Apple has made logins more complex and confusing.
Except app developers are mostly small shops and startups. One-person operations.
How would we like it if the web were forced to behave according to some governing body? It feels like some North Korean 1984 dystopia and we've all got explosive collars around our necks.
It's anti-freedom, anti-American, anti-ownership, anti-Stallman. And I own five iPhones and an iMac.
I just want my stupid software on the stupid fucking software execution device. No tap dancing bear rules. No praise to Apple or forced induction to the Church of Jobs.
Steve Jobs made this artificial, ceremonious bullshit to make money. There is no other reason.
I curse history that his authoritarianism won. It's become pervasive throughout the industry now. It should be illegal.
I'll gladly charge 3x the price to Apple users for having to put up with this malarky.
Future guides will be like:
1) Buy an Apple device
2) Download and sign in to Facebook app
3) Click delete account buttonInstructions here (essentially, press "Permanently Delete Account" in settings and put in your password to confirm): https://www.facebook.com/help/224562897555674
Press release (emphasis mine): "all apps that allow for account creation must also allow users to _initiate_ deletion of their account from within the app."
Guidelines: "If your app supports account creation, you must also offer account deletion within the app."
Has anyone seen any clarification on what options might be acceptable? e.g. I'm wondering about something simple, like opening an email composer with the app support email address and a pre-filled message body requesting account deletion which would be performed async.
Effort on those requests might recover some users which may be especially valuable if you are a subscription business. If you can't benefit from interaction then immediately imitating deletion from an API seems the only thing that would pass muster.
It's not necessarily about recovering users who want to leave but rather minimizing the effort required to implement a more complex deletion flow that has a high probability of never being used by real users (in my case).
Earlier this year, I went through an attempt to purge myself from some internet services that I wasn't using.
Many of the SaaS-type services I tried to remove myself from didn't make account deletion obvious at all. All of them had an email address to contact in their Privacy Policies, but whether you got a response back or not was a different matter.
In practice, I could imagine apps just telling their users that their account deletion "will be processed in 24-48 hours" with a 50/50 chance of it getting processed.
That said, it's a pretty massive wipe.
Photos, videos, documents, and other content that you stored in iCloud are permanently deleted; you can't receive any messages or calls sent to your account via iMessage, FaceTime, or iCloud Mail; and you can't sign in to or use services such as iCloud, the App Store, iTunes Store, Apple Books, Apple Pay, iMessage, FaceTime, and Find My iPhone. In addition, any Apple Store appointments and AppleCare support cases are canceled.
Deleting your Apple ID is permanent. After your account is deleted, Apple can't reopen or reactivate your account or restore your data.
You lose all your credits with apple (if any) app updates will stop working even for apps already downloaded and more.
"Manage Your Data and Privacy." On the following page, select "Get started" under "Delete your account."
But on the other hand, I think they should also carefully disclose the info they collect at their OS level...
Just another case of that old CYA.
You can also view any collected system analytics in Settings -> Privacy- > Analytics & Improvements. Seems relatively fair to me.
"Explain its data retention/deletion policies and describe how a user can revoke consent and/or request deletion of the user’s data."
My first question before looking into it was, "What an auth tenant or some other service that stores user data?" or, "what about like a banking or healthcare app that is just a portal for another system?" And, "What does deleted even mean? IsDeleted=1?"
It would appear Apple's stance on those answers is a shrug emoji. I'm no appstore developer but I got a kick out of reading a lot this for the first time. This rule bearing no exception to a trend that for most part seems intended to give Apple the license to eliminate bad actors.
I got a new one for Apple. "Like, do what you gotta do but don't be a jerk."
Deleted means removing as much PII as you reasonably have authority to do so. It means purging all that data from all databases with a guarantee that you will be removed completely from all snapshots in a reasonable amount of time.
This should be the default, normal understanding of what it means to delete your account.
It doesn't mean set a flag in a database so when your company gets acquired in a few years your new owner has a nice little trove of data to mine of people that explicitly opted out.
1. Auth tenant. Common sense says that if the auth provider is operated by you, it’s your problem to handle deletions appropriately, either by removing their account or by warning the user that you’re only deleting the specific site account and providing a link to delete the SSO account at your website or whatever. If you do not operate the identity provider, such as Facebook, then you need do nothing about it at deletion time. Apple would likely approve any of those paths without comment, but to defend against rules lawyering and loophole seeking, there’s no way to be perfectly certain until it’s approved.
2. Banking or healthcare app. If you can sign up in-app, you’ll need to let people close/delete in-app, except where prohibited by contract or law. For corporate healthcare, you would pop a dialog that says “This account can only be closed through your employer”, which would be absolutely sufficient. Ditto for a banking account with non-zero balances or a safety deposit box or whatever. It seems likely Apple will not have cause to enforce the deletion clause against brick and mortar banks, since they all have help/faqs on how to close accounts already. App-only banks will be held to the more strict standard of having some way to initiate deletion, being app-only, though of course they’ll retain financial audit records as required by law.
3. Deleted means that all information not essential to compliance with financial and other auditing laws has been removed from your systems. Exceptions are understood to exist for recording that someone requested deletion, but you can’t use those records for marketing or training AI or any other purpose beyond managing your deletions. If you can’t explain in plain simple English how you handle deletions, they’re likely to reject your submission until you can.
All of this is obvious. It isn’t comfortable to consider that you’re at the mercy of human beings to evaluate your compliance — human beings that see a thousand scams a minute trying to hack loopholes in the guidelines. But that’s how it is today.
I don't provide a way for a user to delete their data in my app but that's because I don't want to have to deal with having to tell them "You shouldn't have pressed that button". But I'll gladly delete it they request I do.
That's a tough one to balance though. It's been very rare but I've had users call me a few years after their account expired asking if I still had their data, and in all those cases I did, and that saved their butts because they needed it.
In my case storing user data is very inexpensive so unless they ask me to delete it I'll let it sit for long time.
What's happened more often is I'll have users try to login and then renew their accounts after they've sat for over a year.
Example: You are a typical business. A fire completely destroys all of your data, including financial data. If the IRS comes knocking for financial records, you have an excellent reason for why you cannot provide it - force majeure. A law protecting the right of a human to be forgotten should be treated the same as a fire. You do not question it, and should forcefully comply.
E.g. 1) Download an app (N26, Revolut, etc...) 2) Create an account 3) After login, the option to delete the account should be there...
(Of course the bank should respect all data retention policies)
Basically: App allows account creation => App must allow account deletion.
They will throw the end-users (not actual end users but businesses who pay for phone app development) to the wolves in terms of forcing them to rewrite apps so that they can have a few blog posts about "user data security," despite the fact that we know there was at least one CIA backdoor in OSX in the early 2000s until ~2015 or so.
At some point all phone apps are going to be javascript web apps, Apple is just desperately trying to prolong the inevitable here.
Where can i read up more on this?
I call to all smart knowing license people of Hacker News. Is this a copy-left license attached to a person's data?
All mobile banking apps that allow signup seem to also allow account closure, so there isn’t exactly a problem there.
If I sign up for insurance in an app, I expect (and Apple will enforce) that I can cancel it in an app. Setting aside certain health insurance scenarios where I have no legal authority to terminate my insurance, I expect that Apple will absolutely start enforcing that insurance account management apps need to have a way to terminate coverage. But I think this isn’t the kind of business they’re concerned about, so they might focus on other business categories first.
Insurance and banks probably aren't affected, since your account is created outside of the app
So is this what often happens in a field with large players … only the current social networks can exist, no new ones may ever be launched in the App Store?
@dang is there a way to delete accounts on HN?
Bye bye Hootsuite and other apps for automating Facebook and Twitter posts.
I guess the precedent would be that they didn’t used to allow redirecting to a website with the purpose of avoid in-app charges. Although I think that’s over with now.
This almost forces all software that does anything on the internet to be subscription based (or free).
I wonder if the famously hard to delete Facebook account will comply!
Just yuck. All of it. Over and over again we see these antideveloper and anticonsumer moves - which always happen to be set in just the right way to take power and give it to apple under the guise of security or privacy.
Anyone got the link to delete your Apple ID? It's been years since I've had a need for mine.
big sigh of relief for me with a service companion app that delegates account creation to a web admin interface ...
anyone know ?
> (v) Account Sign-In: If your app doesn’t include significant account-based features, let people use it without a login. If your app supports account creation, you must also offer account deletion within the app. Apps may not require users to enter personal information to function, except when directly relevant to the core functionality of the app or required by law. If your core app functionality is not related to a specific social network (e.g. Facebook, WeChat, Weibo, Twitter, etc.), you must provide access without a login or via another mechanism. Pulling basic profile information, sharing to the social network, or inviting friends to use the app are not considered core app functionality. The app must also include a mechanism to revoke social network credentials and disable data access between the app and social network from within the app. An app may not store credentials or tokens to social networks off of the device and may only use such credentials or tokens to directly connect to the social network from the app itself while the app is in use.
Also interesting:
> (viii) Apps that compile personal information from any source that is not directly from the user or without the user’s explicit consent, even public databases, are not permitted on the App Store.
So why is Facebook still allowed? It still creates shadow profiles without permissions as far as I know.
Maybe because the app itself isn't doing it? I'm not sure what "apps that" vs using the information the app gives you are really different but in technical detail it might be.
> Apps that compile personal information from any source... without the user’s explicit consent
i wonder how far they will enforce this...for example, will they tolerate apps that refuse to function without said consent?
what about an eula and just tapping "ok i read it"?
just my bias maybe, but "free to use" but requiring "user consent" seems like a nice avenue for getting around restriction and rules designed to protect them
This also has nothing to do with unapproved software. The idea that a user can actually delete their data from your servers should not be a controversial topic. But of course it is for businesses and developers, which is why Apple has to make a policy like this.
As a user I am very happy with this.
You're not going to find support in a forum with 60+% Apple users. A lot of these people work for or have stock in this company.
They don't see how this is a roadblock to competition and that this device is now in the critical path of 50+% of commerce. (Maybe they'll care more when they have to compete.)
What would really give users the control they deserve is the ability to restrict what data can be sent off the device by an app in the first place.
Apple should make it possible to deny internet access to an app entirely, and they should provide an API that allows apps to upload very specific kinds of data that a user has approved of, but nothing else. Of course, some apps need to be able to request unrestricted internet access.
Permitting apps to collect private data and have unrestricted internet access, by default, was always a terrible decision in terms of user privacy. Apple owes it to their users to fix the problem they created.
What apps are left if this is forbidden?
"private data" can mean pretty much any user input. "unrestricted internet access" means pretty much any internet access.
We're left with apps that either cannot accept user input or cannot access the internet at all.