For trust to enter into your relationship with Apple shows how poorly you approach the relationship, that's why there are business contracts, that's why there are warranties, because "trust" should never be an issue that needs discussing, for the simple reason they can not be trusted without their having a sense of "loss of profit".
Your "dissatisfaction" wouldn't enter into it if they thought they could continue to make money.

You trust people you know face to face, you do not trust a corporation with a history of poor security, slave labor, financial fraud, tax evasion, personal data accumulation of customers for resell and customer manipulation, and interaction with governmental agencies that is ethically dubious at best.

Why would they ever have *your* best interest at heart? After everything I've mentioned above, that can easily be Googled and verified, it should be very clear they do not have your best interest at heart.

They have your money at heart.

Why? Why would you ever trust a company like Apple, or for that matter Google or Microsoft, why is trust even on the table?

Because the truth is you simply can not trust these corporations, they have shown that multiple times.

That's a nonsense point, the question is "Can Apple push whatever they want?" Not "Do I use OS X"
  and the answer is "We don't know, and they can not be trusted"
This same question can be asked of Google, Microsoft and Linux (Redhat, Ubuntu) as well.

If you don't think they are complicit with the US (and other nations) security agencies that's your right to believe that.
IMO The evidence today shows they are, and the only thing they worry about is dependability.

"they" being Apple/Google/Microsoft complex.

That involves trusting Apple, I'm not doing that after all the things we have seen over the years.

You can turn this off in system preferences > app store

What else can they "push"...

I use VPN for all my browsing, not because of porn or things I want to hide, simply because I believe my ISP should be a dumb pipe, not reroute my 404's and they get enough of my money as it is with out profiting on my personal browsing habits as well.

I see a small percentage of the population complain about something, and if they come off as being on the side of a society approved message ie; "porn is bad" then they can get their way, an inordinate amount of power for a small whiny percentage of the population.

While I understand that parents don't want their young children watching anal fisting porn, it's troubling parents choose to allow others to be responsible for that control.
I see this a lot, parents complaining about the need for more controls and laws to protect their kids, shifting the responsibility from personal to societal.
Or is that just the media using a "society approved" "we care about the children" propaganda message?

Did you know the CIA says it only takes %3 of a population to effect change, what does that say about the other %97?
Erica Chenoweth wrote an interesting paper on this, she found that for peaceful change, it took a larger percentage of the population to get involved, closer to %5 or higher, but for a violent change a smaller percentage is all that was needed, recall the CIA percentage I just mentioned?

She also found that peaceful change lasted longer and had better results than violent change, gives you an insight into how and what the CIA is about, hence so many "student revolutions" in foreign countries that end poorly and destabilized regions.

Personal responsibility is a sign of a mature person, and a mature society, increasing laws, regulations and societal pressures is the opposite.

Twitter used for news is the decline of journalism, not a leap forward.
Nothing makes a news organization look more ridiculous than using twitter post, they are unverifiable at the time used, and more often than not I've watched as they have been proven incorrect or patently false.

Oh look...
http://radaronline.com/exclusi...

The Age of The Whiner.
From over hyphenation, to nerfed weapons in video games, to over regulation of the Internet due to trolls (you know... instead of ignoring them).

Zing!!!

Lets take this complaint by the GCHQ, and lets assume that the NSA/FBI may have similar issues, if indeed it's really a problem.
Then lets look at the Google/Apple/Microsoft complex offering up encryption for their users, as though to say "you're safe with us now".

These Snowden revelations crippled the "security" agencies, so what's the natural response?
"How do we get users to become complacent again?"

Easy, have the Google/Apple/Microsoft complex offer up encryption, then have the FBI come out publicly and complain about it, as though it (the encryption) were really going to be a problem for them, to trick people into thinking the encryption is actually solid.

http://time.com/3437222/iphone...

How valid this hypothesis appears to you is a direct measure of what you believe is the truth of our World today.
Are the corps, media and agencies complicit? Or aren't they.

I really doubt it, if anything this shows the inability of the police to adapt to changing situations, and for those already busted the word got out how it was done so if anything the Snowden revelations drew a line under it, not actually revealing anything unknown.

The funny thing is Google recorded all of that for eternity, to haunt you later, the librarian would probably forget.