[gpm]

Of course it isn't. I own the phone, not Google.

Do you expect Apple to listen to your conversations just because you use a mac and it has a microphone? Do you expect Toyota to track you everywhere you go because your car came with a GPS system?

Building the system, let alone just making the software, doesn't give you the rights to all the data it produces after you sell it.

[oldcynic]

Yet most of the large corporations are taking exactly that view. GDPR can't come soon enough.

[merb]

> Of course it isn't. I own the phone, not Google.

Maybe the phone, but not the software running on it.

[sjwright]

I don't know why that comment was being voted down, but it is a correct and important point. Consumers' idea of product ownership is more aligned with that of cars and coffee machines.

Most consumers don't realise how little of their phone is purchased and how much of it is licensed, rented or reliant on corporate existence. Imagine if Apple and Google magically disappeared from the universe—the value and utility of your phone will plummet.

[merb]

> Consumers' idea of product ownership is more aligned with that of cars and coffee machines.

Well in germany there is a good sentence about that. 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse'. So basically no matter what you know of anything you won't be guarded by laziness (at least if you are under normal conditions of course).

[subroutine]

What is the difference? Both the hardware and the software are covered by hundreds of patents, copyright protections, license agreements, end user agreements, etc.

The question here is what basic privacies can someone expect when they purchase a phone, and how transparent do companies need to be about what information they are collecting.

[sjwright]

The difference is the essence of ownership. Google/Apple can't physically take away my phone, but they could declare a violation of the terms of service and terminate the software license agreement.