There's a rather large selection of good-to-extraordinary software that doesn't use any sort of analytics/auto-reporting. Off the top of my head, GNU coreutils, and BSD flavor, sqlite, qmail, (neo)vim, emacs, GIMP...
Gimp: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828800
I wouldn't call it auto-reporting when the user has to agree first; consent is the sticking point. (Same for abrt) (granted, I should have been more precise and I suppose that is automated in a sense; I took "automatic" to mean "without asking")
You can hardly compare coreutils to smartphone apps.
As someone who deals with Android fragmentation daily, you wouldn't believe how hard it is to support the whole ecosystem. Disliking analytics I can understand, but crash reporting adds measurable improvement in the quality of software.
> You can hardly compare coreutils to smartphone apps.
Indeed; coreutils works on an absurd variety of unix-family systems, is copyleft, respects privacy, and is high-quality. If smartphone apps were more like coreutils, we'd all be better off.
> As someone who deals with Android fragmentation daily, you wouldn't believe how hard it is to support the whole ecosystem. Disliking analytics I can understand, but crash reporting adds measurable improvement in the quality of software.
I do understand where you're coming from; while I don't have skin in that game, I'm passingly aware of the remarkable ways that vendors break their systems. And honestly, if you get user consent, I don't actually have a problem with having the app report problems to you. It's just the "send information about the user's system without asking" thing that I object to.