Because that's a contrived interpretation, especially when the data wouldn't even exist unless the monitoring software was there to create it.
The panelists are selling their effort in installing/maintaining the software, and renting out their devices' processor-time/memory/bandwidth to run the monitoring app, and being compensated for any risks/delays such monitoring introduces. In some cases, they're also spending time answering questionnaires! That is, being paid to provide a service – where the delivery of the end-product of that service happens to be data.
But even if they were selling rights to data that they normally generate in private, they're still doing it under the terms of a contract, in return for payment, which makes them a contractor for the duration of the time they're delivering the data.
For comparison, consider a services company which installs phone-trackers & cameras in a retail location, then provides the resulting data about customer paths/visits to the retailer. That company isn't primarily "selling rights to data". They're selling a service, requiring their equipment and time, where that data is created and delivered. And they're doing it under a contract, and they too are a contractor, not a mere "data vendor". And it's the same with natural persons who enter a legal agreement with FB/Google to run FB/Google's software on their own devices, occasionally answer questions & update that software, obey the other terms of the legal agreement, and report back the resulting data to the corporate contractee.
> especially when the data wouldn't even exist unless the monitoring software was there to create it.
The data does exist, in transit. It's google's own code which creates new metadata from it; that's not anything each individual vendor/user is doing other than providing access to the data for google to collect. You're a developer; this should be apparent to you.
I'm not really here to debate the legal merits with someone when neither of us are qualified to do so (you're not a lawyer, I'm not a lawyer, and existing lawyers have already commented on this to no end and disputed endlessly the idea that anyone in this arena would be considered a contractor). I'm just seeing how much you're willing to flesh out your novel legal theory in association with your public name on the internet.
Which lawyers have said they're not contractors? (I haven't noticed anyone responding to my queries who's reported legal expertise – but I have quoted a legally-trained reporter who advances the same interpretation.)
In what way does a person under contract to perform certain duties, on their own devices, being compensated, in accordance with a legally-enforceable contract not fit this dictionary definition of a 'contractor'?
Compensated research panelists meet all these definitions.
Did you know that Nielsen restructured its payments to its similarly monitored panelists, because it knew it'd otherwise have to 1099 them, like any other natural person receiving compensation for services under a contract?
You realize the debate is whether all counterparties to a contract are considered "internal" to Google, right? You're still missing that.
Vendors, Contractors, etc. are all counterparties to Google in their agreements. Vendors are not considered internal to any company unless explicitly stated.
It's so fascinating watching the machinations in your mind trying to justify that all of these folks are somehow internal to Google.
-------
Anyway, it's settled. Google agrees with the notion that the app should not have been operated under Apple's program, which itself is a tacit agreement with the premise that this app is not an internal app by any stretch of the imagination.
> "The Screenwise Meter iOS app should not have operated under Apple's developer enterprise program. This was a mistake, and we apologize."
You claimed: "existing lawyers have already commented on this to no end and disputed endlessly the idea that anyone in this arena would be considered a contractor"
But now there are... none? So you hallucinated their comments?
And you can't identify any way the panelists don't meet the multiple 'contractor' definitions I've provided?
And you've apparently forgotten that the Apple terms explicitly allow the enterprise's contractors, as part of the definition of "Permitted Users".
I've stated elsewhere that the apps may have violated another aspect of the Enterprise Terms, about the use of the "Network Extension Framework". And further that even if the use was OK by the current terms, Apple has the power to change them.
And both Apple and Google would rather this go away, so Google isn't going to go-to-the-legal-mat with their best arguments unless this platform cold war gets a lot hotter. (In particular, some of the best anti-competition arguments that could be made about Apple's behavior are arguments Google wouldn't want made against its own behaviors elsewhere.)
So no, Google's admission of error is strategic kiss-and-make-nice rather than dispositive on the terms, and especially doesn't hinge on your insistence that these contracted workers aren't 'contractors'.
"A Vendor, in contrast, is just a contractor who provides goods and/`or services to the recipient so the recipient can accomplish the project’s purposes. Selected terms and conditions might be passed through to the vendor."
It's an inappropriate reference, anyway, since it's specifically talking about the lingo of federal grants, not more general agreements. But if you're imagining lawyers-in-the-conversation who aren't here, and supplying links that explicitly refute your claim of a bright-line vendor/contractor distinction, I think we're done. Good day, sir!
> But now there are... none? So you hallucinated their comments?
I linked one on the open web. I've linked others in my past comments...
> And you've apparently forgotten that the Apple terms explicitly allow the enterprise's contractors, as part of the definition of "Permitted Users".
It actually doesn't. The constraint is employees or persons who are obligated to protect the internal use application from unauthorized use. Screenwise Meter has no NDA or other substantive clause (from what I can google) binding its users to protect it from unauthorized use per the definition of Permitted Users apple put down on paper. Should be noted that this is also one of the general distinctions between most vendors v. most contractors producing work for hire.
---
Google admitted to a mistake you're still saying they didn't make, in contradiction to "go-to-the-legal-mat with their best arguments unless this platform cold war gets a lot hotter." They just went on the record saying what they were doing was wrong. Which gives them a mighty hard time in the public arena trying to repeat it.
> I think we're done. Good day, sir!
So you're right, we're quite done. I still wouldn't have taken the position you took up with your name attached to it on the open internet, but you do you.
The panelists are selling their effort in installing/maintaining the software, and renting out their devices' processor-time/memory/bandwidth to run the monitoring app, and being compensated for any risks/delays such monitoring introduces. In some cases, they're also spending time answering questionnaires! That is, being paid to provide a service – where the delivery of the end-product of that service happens to be data.
But even if they were selling rights to data that they normally generate in private, they're still doing it under the terms of a contract, in return for payment, which makes them a contractor for the duration of the time they're delivering the data.
For comparison, consider a services company which installs phone-trackers & cameras in a retail location, then provides the resulting data about customer paths/visits to the retailer. That company isn't primarily "selling rights to data". They're selling a service, requiring their equipment and time, where that data is created and delivered. And they're doing it under a contract, and they too are a contractor, not a mere "data vendor". And it's the same with natural persons who enter a legal agreement with FB/Google to run FB/Google's software on their own devices, occasionally answer questions & update that software, obey the other terms of the legal agreement, and report back the resulting data to the corporate contractee.