If you think that's user-hostile, there are also "Silent" (Type0) SMS messages—messages that don't trigger any event on the phone, but do return an ACK to the carrier with IMSI metadata attached (as all SMS messages do upon receipt, so that the carrier can de-queue them.)
This message type literally has only one use on modern phones: to allow police to trace your location.
But boy, imagine the argument that'd get started if Apple decided to let you turn acknowledgements for SMS-Type0 off... (really, I imagine police would just lean on carriers to refuse to activate devices that have this capability, citing "network incompatibility.")
I would love to see that standoff happen - both from a consumer privacy perspective and to put carriers in their place. It would be interesting to find out if the carriers think that Apple needs them more, or if they need Apple more (I strongly suspect it's the latter).
Isn’t that info leaked anyway as part of transmitting data packets, given iOS maintains persistent connections to Apple anyway so it would cause keep-alives to be sent regularly?
This message type literally has only one use on modern phones: to allow police to trace your location.
But boy, imagine the argument that'd get started if Apple decided to let you turn acknowledgements for SMS-Type0 off... (really, I imagine police would just lean on carriers to refuse to activate devices that have this capability, citing "network incompatibility.")