Author here. > This is necessary from an IP- Intellectual Property- perspective. Not debatable. Please share naive takes on the legitimacy of IP in other fora.

Author here. > This is necessary from an IP- Intellectual Property- perspective. Not debatable. Please share naive takes on the legitimacy of IP in other fora. If I use the Sonos radio, then they might need to check the location. Until I do, there's zero need for location. I don't use their Radio. > Therefore, in order to run a business, and to know your customers, you have to get the usage data from the product itself. Anonymous usage data works just as well to know your customers, make product decisions, etc. This is a false dichotomy. Sonos does not need to know that much about its customers to gain those insights. And in fact, I'm pretty sure what they're doing is illegal, at least in the EU. > The incentives are- being able to stay in business selling speakers that people like and use without building a surveillance infrastructure. Unfortunately, they are building a surveillance infrastructure. And that's not cool. Also most likely illegal. > Let me be blunt- your mind does not know what is involved in keeping a business alive. I run a B2C bootstrapped business (single digit $million in ARR, profitable). You don't know me, and I don't think this kind of personal attack adds to this discussion. This is uncalled for. > Sonos is in fact a great case study. The business did run entirely without any customer accounts or other usage monitoring for the first several years of its existence. Guess what? They were unprofitable, and running out of cash, headed to failure. This is a weak and dangerous argument. So the mafia was having problem running a legit business, but as soon as they turned to extortion and murder, the business thrived. Guess what? there are laws and regulations in place. And there are ethics. If Sonos wants to track, learn, measure, they can use anonymised data, they can also ask for permission. Instead they choose to spy on people and hide behind "legitimate interest". No. It's not legitimate.