I'm sympathetic to the idea that there are implicit expectations during a purchase that shouldn't ideally be violated. But I'm curious if you truly believe this, or if it's just hyperbole.
In this "fully my property, not a service I'm using" framework, would an update that patches a security vulnerability be "altruism"? Would refusal on Google's part to patch vulnerabilities be a completely acceptable refusal to futz with someone's property?
This is a serious question; my perspective is that "I thought I was buying unchanging property" is disingenuous unless you're similarly surprised by app updates and maintenance (let alone feature development). The expectation of these updates makes it pretty clear to me that this resembles a service more than a static product that Google has ability to "vandalize" (or responsibility to maintain).
