Not on Android. People love to stan for Android because "it's open source," but Android would have gone nowhere if Google didn't buy it, and Google wouldn't have bought it if they weren't convinced it would let them scrape more personal data than Gmail. (And Andy Rubin made Android because he heard Steve Jobs say the iPhone would run OS X, and he thought he could probably whip up a Linux distro to run on a phone.)

You could get an iPhone and not run any apps by Google, Meta, Microsoft, X, or any of the other privacy-opposed companies. You'd also better change the default search off of Google. DuckDuckGo is an option. Ecosia might be. Not sure. The issue is, while Apple says they're all about privacy, that's based on them being a computer/hardware company first (and Google being a data company first). However, Apple is heavily leaning into services now — Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple News+, and more — and there are rumors they want their own search engine. So while Apple may be privacy strong now, you don't know what they'll be a year from now, or three, or five.

It's like Tim Cook (Apple CEO) said about Facebook when they introduced the tracking limiter. "You can still give Facebook permission to track you all over the web, they just gotta get your permission first." That's true of privacy. You can still use Google, Meta, Microsoft, X, TikTok, and other privacy-violating companies' products, but what you share is entirely up to you. You can use some of those services in Safari and block some tracking, or you can install the apps and allow it all. It's up to you.

Or, you can buy a Pixel and reward Google's business model, and put GrapheneOS on it. That is probably better, privacy-wise, than using an iPhone. But you're still rewarding Google's business model. And if they're making so much money off your data that opting out isn't even an option, why does the Pixel cost the same the iPhone does (and more, considering the Pixel Fold)? You are getting more RAM, but RAM is cheap. You're not getting a better processor — Apple has won that race for years. Camera tech is about 50/50. Screen is up in the air — I think Apple's is better, but Google et al use higher resolutions. Apple buys from the same companies but screens are made to spec which is why Apple's are better than those by companies they buy from. Their spec is more demanding. "Good enough" is what passes in Android — it's like how iPhones use NVMe and Androids use UFS. NVMe is more expensive, and it's faster on paper, but in the real world? UFS is good enough. You wouldn't see a difference, or a significant one, in real world usage. So what are you paying for in a Pixel? The lower specs plus the privacy/data factor should make the Pixel significantly cheaper... except Google is a publicly traded company, so they can't sell it that low.

Apple may not be the best option, but they're advertising that they are (with regards to privacy). And I think they're trying. I'm not saying they're saints. They are doing better than Google though. And you have to decide if that's worth your money. And dealing with a crappy keyboard. The keyboard sucks.