If this does get forced upon Apple I hope that they are allowed to have a version of iOS that allows this cr*p and another that doesn't and let the user decide which one they want to install on their devices and let the users speak with their own actions. I think the EU might be surprised. The last thing that I want to happen is to arrive in some country and be forced to side-load an app that will track my movements, download all of my contacts, monitor my browsing or other things that would never get past the security features of Apps found on the Apple iOS Store. If I have the Apple only iOS installed they wouldn't be able to do this without reformatting my iPhone and they wouldn't get away with doing that as easily nor have the time.
Basically, I think that this is all a ploy, they don't really care about giving users "choice" in fact they want to take away choice by being able to side-load "back doors" into iOS. Call me crazy or paranoid, but just watch, this is what will happen and you can guess the first countries that will mandate this.
Speaking of competition, security and the EU .........
I recently paid over $700 for two duplicate keys (Smart keys) for my wife's Mercedes.
It seems for security reasons, the software needed to make a Mercedes smart key is proprietary and only a Mercedes dealer has access to it. So even the most well equipped locksmith specializing in making duplicate auto smart keys, can not make one for a Mercedes.
Not only this, for security reasons, not even the Mercedes dealers keep any blank keys in stock. They have to order the key from the factory and this might be from Germany. So it's a 3 to 7 days wait, after paying for the order.
Plus one need to show ID and registration in order to make a duplicate Mercedes key. Even if you have the original key in hand. And the owner might even have to drive the Mercedes in, if the dealer needs access to the car computer in order to program the key. Mercedes is very concern about security.
And the chip in a Mercedes key is also proprietary and can only be flashed once. So even if one buy a used key of the same year and model off eBay for less than $30, the key can not be reprogramed to work on another Mercedes. This even if one got access to the software and the know how.
So it cost me $350 to program a new duplicate key at a Mercedes dealer and $175 for the blank key. Which took 5 days to arrive. I had two keys made as i would not need to pay for the the $350 programing on the second key (if made at the same time). All this for a Mercedes my wife bought from a friend, for less than $1000 (That came with only one key.).
I would like to see Vestager look into how Mercedes, which is HQed in Germany, is limiting competition by only having one source (a Mercedes dealer) from where Mercedes owners can buy keys for their Mercedes. And at a cost that is more than twice what most other car makers charges. All for the reason of ..... "security".
Using the definition of a "monopoly" some are applying to Apple with iOS users, Mercedes can be said to have a "monopoly" with Mercedes owners as they only have one choice from where they can buy their Mercedes keys from.
That link is to part of a site and mainly for businesses to report anti-competitive behavior of another business, not for the average consumers to report harm by anti-competitive behavior of a business. That much is plainly obvious from just reading the URL link you posted, let alone once you're on the site. Plus i'm not in the EU.
Now if I were a locksmith in the EU, that link might be of help.
Who has more interest in complaining? A consumer, or a business that is negatively impacted by anti competitive practices?
That said, consumers can present complaints about anti competitive practices equally as easily as businesses.
By the same token, theEU shouldn't use privacy and security as an excuse to claim Apple is being anticompetitive.
Do desktop computers generally offer better software prices for consumers than the iPhone? No. Do Android phones offer generally better software prices for consumers? No. So where's the evidence that the higher level of privacy and security on an iPhone is harmful to consumers? The EU hasn't really found any to date. Sure, Spotify claimed that iOS was forcing them to charge a higher price and putting them at a competitive disadvantage, but when they were required to provide their actual revenue info...that claim turned out to be false. Less than 1% of their revenue was actually subject to a commission, and even then it was 15% and not 30%. It's similar to Microsoft cheerleading the Epic lawsuit in the U.S. and then refusing to provide any actual numbers for their claims that Xbox hardware never made a profit. These companies aren't exactly reliable witnesses.
This lack of evidence for the anti competition claims is also the exact reason Congress in the U.S. is going with a market cap. It's an approach that doesn't need a court ruling on antitrust. It's a series of commerce bills instead. Business below the cap can continue per usual and business above the cap will potentially be restricted in some manner.
By the same token, theEU shouldn't use privacy and security as an excuse to claim Apple is being anticompetitive.
Do desktop computers generally offer better software prices for consumers than the iPhone? No. Do Android phones offer generally better software prices for consumers? No. So where's the evidence that the higher level of privacy and security on an iPhone is harmful to consumers? The EU hasn't really found any to date. Sure, Spotify claimed that iOS was forcing them to charge a higher price and putting them at a competitive disadvantage, but when they were required to provide their actual revenue info...that claim turned out to be false. Less than 1% of their revenue was actually subject to a commission, and even then it was 15% and not 30%. It's similar to Microsoft cheerleading the Epic lawsuit in the U.S. and then refusing to provide any actual numbers for their claims that Xbox hardware never made a profit. These companies aren't exactly reliable witnesses.
This lack of evidence for the anti competition claims is also the exact reason Congress in the U.S. is going with a market cap. It's an approach that doesn't need a court ruling on antitrust. It's a series of commerce bills instead. Business below the cap can continue per usual and business above the cap will potentially be restricted in some manner.
You've misunderstood what is happening here I think.
She isn't saying that security and privacy are harmful to consumers so no evidence is necessary.
She's saying that Apple should fall back on those aspects as a defence
Also, the UK voted to leave the EU 5 years ago, get over it.
Strange aggression. I am over it. My dad died 20 years ago, I'm over that too, but it still makes me sad. I'm very interested in this "get over it!" angle that so many people fall back on when someone expresses a different opinion about something that happened in the past. If we never acknowledge our mistakes, just "get over it" then we never learn anything. Basically, when you say "get over it" you identify yourself as a moron. Just saying.
Also, while the vote was 5 years ago, it only came into effect much more recently. It's not the vote I'm sad about, it's the effect of the vote.
In an interview with Reuters, Vestager agreed with Cook that privacy and security are important factors for consumers, but warned the Cupertino tech giant against using concerns about them to fend off competition.
I guess the health and safety of drugs shouldn't be a motivating factor of drug companies either.
I think what she’s saying is that you must make your OS more open to scams and malware to level the playing field.
The last time the EU got involved in stuff it knows nothing about, we ended up with a page full of questions and checkboxes in front of every website.
Hyperbole much? Most websites have a banner with an Accept Cookies button and nothing more. Also, we* also got much greater rights over our data, and much greater responsibility placed on the companies that hold our data. Tim Cook came out in favour of the GDPR.
* by which I mean EU citizens, which I sadly am no longer counted among, but some of the effect remains.
The GDPR banners are *really* annoying. Especially since on by default "legitimate interest" is now a loophole so if you want to block the cookies, you have to manually turn that off for many of the sites you visit.
I have a Safari extension that hides the modal <div> so no more badly implemented EU guff. Whilst I agree with the GDPR, if the EU had any foresight they would have realised how annoying these popups would be, and they would have legislated on several web-related aspects to combat it. Of course we have to remember Eurocrats are mostly politicians who were rejected by their own country's citizens, failures and has-beens who are of course gladly welcomed by their deficient brethren into the EU Commission's bosom; so we really can't expect much.
Anyway, those aspects:
Not allowed "legitimate interest" as a workaround to enable third party cookies by default
Disallowed websites from presenting a modal window/banner/popup, forcing users to fiddle with settings (sometimes with literally 100+ third party companies) before the site allows access, and therefore
Defaulting everyone to nothing but essential cookies
Enabled access to enable third party cookies though a non-modal button, for those in the unenviable category of actually wanting third party cookies
But of course they didn't, and here we are.
Given that my experience with the web doesn't resemble anything you've said there I'm pretty sure your list is full of shit. Fiddling with settings before a site allows access? What are you talking about? The EU isn't responsible for those things being annoying, website designers are. Complain to the websites that annoy you.
Allowing a "legitimate interest" workaround is exactly the kind of loophole that would make the entire thing meaningless. I'm very glad they didn't do that.
avon b7 said: You've misunderstood what is happening here I think. She isn't saying that security and privacy are harmful to consumers so no evidence is necessary.
I haven't misunderstood anything. Apple has stated that using the App Store as a single point of distribution for native iOS software is significantly more secure than the approach Android uses. They have provided evidence that supports that statement. Has the EU provided evidence that supports their statement that iOS is anticompetitive? No. Their star witness, Spotify, was unable to provide proof of their claim that iOS put them at a competitive disadvantage due to the App Store commission. Turns out 99% of Spotify's revenue was not impacted by the commission at all. That proves that consumers can/will sign up and pay for services outside of the App Store. And like I have been saying, the EU can't possibly point to software prices on Windows/macOS or Android and try and claim that iOS has forced higher prices on consumers. It hasn't. Windows/Mac prices are significantly higher and Android prices are essentially equivalent across the board.
So what is the EU left with? Trying to insinuate that Apple's privacy/security stance is somehow the "proof" that they're anticompetitive. EU has nothing else to show.
So what is the EU left with? Trying to insinuate that Apple's privacy/security stance is somehow the "proof" that they're anticompetitive. EU has nothing else to show.
You've extrapolated massively. There's no insinuation of proof at all.
crowley said: You've extrapolated massively. There's no insinuation of proof at all.
Nope. Vestager is definitely insinuating that Apple's privacy/security features are themselves harming competition. That's all the EU has left. Spotify crapped the bed when they had to produce the receipts per their "harm" claims and consumer software prices on iOS are significantly cheaper than Windows/Mac and equivalent to Android.
This why I HATE government. It’s like they are trying to rum business. It’s like telling fast food they can’t sell heir own brand of French fries. You have to have a menu or other restaurants brand of fries. F@#k out of here
crowley said: You've extrapolated massively. There's no insinuation of proof at all.
Nope. Vestager is definitely insinuating that Apple's privacy/security features are themselves harming competition. That's all the EU has left. Spotify crapped the bed when they had to produce the receipts per their "harm" claims and consumer software prices on iOS are significantly cheaper than Windows/Mac and equivalent to Android.
No she isn't. She's suggesting that Apple are attempting to use privacy and security as a shield from accusations of anti-competitive practices. That the App Store may provide privacy and security for its users, but that isn't in itself a get out clause for being subject to antitrust law. Vestager and the EU's position is that providing privacy and security must come within the framework of fair competition.
And that's fair enough. Apple being committed to privacy and security is great, but it doesn't confer immunity.
avon b7 said: You've misunderstood what is happening here I think. She isn't saying that security and privacy are harmful to consumers so no evidence is necessary.
I haven't misunderstood anything. Apple has stated that using the App Store as a single point of distribution for native iOS software is significantly more secure than the approach Android uses. They have provided evidence that supports that statement.
Has the EU provided evidence that supports their statement that iOS is anticompetitive?
No. Their star witness, Spotify, was unable to provide proof of their claim that iOS put them at a competitive disadvantage due to the App Store commission. Turns out 99% of Spotify's revenue was not impacted by the commission at all. That proves that consumers can/will sign up and pay for services outside of the App Store. And like I have been saying, the EU can't possibly point to software prices on Windows/macOS or Android and try and claim that iOS has forced higher prices on consumers. It hasn't. Windows/Mac prices are significantly higher and Android prices are essentially equivalent across the board.
So what is the EU left with? Trying to insinuate that Apple's privacy/security stance is somehow the "proof" that they're anticompetitive. EU has nothing else to show.
You have changed your statement.
When I replied to your original comment (which I bolded) it was this:
"So where's the evidence that the higher level of privacy and security on an iPhone is harmful to consumers?"
In your reply to that comment, it is this:
"Has the EU provided evidence that supports their statement that iOS is anticompetitive?"
To answer that, different question, we'll have to wait for the findings.
They are not the same thing.
Apple is being investigated for possible anti competitive behavior. Vestager is saying that Apple shouldn't be using the argument of security and privacy to defend its position.
When I replied to your original comment (which I bolded) it was this:
"So where's the evidence that the higher level of privacy and security on an iPhone is harmful to consumers?"
In your reply to that comment, it is this:
"Has the EU provided evidence that supports their statement that iOS is anticompetitive?"
To answer that, different question, we'll have to wait for the findings.
"The important thing here is, of course, that it's not a shield against competition, because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload."
That's the direct quote from Vestager. She is equating Apple's higher level of privacy/security vs Windows/Mac/Android to a "shield against competition". Her words, not mine. All of the focus is on the security aspect alone being equal to anticompetitive behavior. Note that Vestager doesn't make any mention of a specific BENEFIT to consumers with her statement. She doesn't claim alternate app stores or side loading will improve security for consumers. She doesn't claim that they'll lower prices for consumers either. Why? Because the EU already knows that they don't have any evidence that supports those kinds of claims. Windows/Mac/Android are not better at security. Windows/Mac/Android do not provide better prices for software.
So, my first quote and second quote speak to the same thing: the EU does think privacy/security on iOS is synonymous with harm to consumers and anticompetitive behavior. But they don't have any evidence to back it up.
When I replied to your original comment (which I bolded) it was this:
"So where's the evidence that the higher level of privacy and security on an iPhone is harmful to consumers?"
In your reply to that comment, it is this:
"Has the EU provided evidence that supports their statement that iOS is anticompetitive?"
To answer that, different question, we'll have to wait for the findings.
"The important thing here is, of course, that it's not a shield against competition, because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload."
That's the direct quote from Vestager. She is equating Apple's higher level of privacy/security vs Windows/Mac/Android to a "shield against competition". Her words, not mine. All of the focus is on the security aspect alone being equal to anticompetitive behavior. Note that Vestager doesn't make any mention of a specific BENEFIT to consumers with her statement. She doesn't claim alternate app stores or side loading will improve security for consumers. She doesn't claim that they'll lower prices for consumers either. Why? Because the EU already knows that they don't have any evidence that supports those kinds of claims. Windows/Mac/Android are not better at security. Windows/Mac/Android do not provide better prices for software.
So, my first quote and second quote speak to the same thing: the EU does think privacy/security on iOS is synonymous with harm to consumers and anticompetitive behavior. But they don't have any evidence to back it up.
I think you've got it completely the wrong way round.
They aren't saying that security and privacy on iOS are synonymous with anticompetitive behaviour, they're saying that whether the system is secure and private is irrelevant to whether it is anticompetitive and shouldn't be part of the conversation. What may be the case is that Apple's approach to security and privacy has lead them down a path that is anticompetitive. But from Margarethe Vestager's perspective that needs to be judged on its anticompetitive nature, not on whether it's secure or private. She is very clear, security and privacy is not a shield. Doing right in one sense does not give you carte blanche to do wrong in another.
I think the "customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload" is a bit of a throwaway line and not very important to her stance. Probably not helpful either, she should probably avoid saying things like that.
crowley said: You've extrapolated massively. There's no insinuation of proof at all.
Nope. Vestager is definitely insinuating that Apple's privacy/security features are themselves harming competition. That's all the EU has left. Spotify crapped the bed when they had to produce the receipts per their "harm" claims and consumer software prices on iOS are significantly cheaper than Windows/Mac and equivalent to Android.
No she isn't. She's suggesting that Apple are attempting to use privacy and security as a shield from accusations of anti-competitive practices. That the App Store may provide privacy and security for its users, but that isn't in itself a get out clause for being subject to antitrust law. Vestager and the EU's position is that providing privacy and security must come within the framework of fair competition.
And that's fair enough. Apple being committed to privacy and security is great, but it doesn't confer immunity.
"I think privacy and security is of paramount importance to everyone," Vestager said. "The important thing here is, of course, that it's not a shield against competition, because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload."
If one takes the context of the whole quote, then what Vestager is saying is that Apple should not be using privacy and security as an excuse to not allow third party apps stores or side loading, in iOS (in other words ..... competition). She thinks that privacy and security are of paramount importance and might even believe that they can be a valid excuse for Apple to not allow third party app stores and side loading, BUT she doesn't think that third party app stores or side loading presents a threat to the privacy and security of iOS users.
She is not suggesting that Apple is attempting to use privacy and security as a reason to be anti-competitive. (Shielding against competition, is not the same as being anti-competitive. At least not in the US.) She actually thinks that allowing third party app stores and side loading will not present any privacy and security issues, for iOS users. Therefore, she thinks that the privacy and security issues that Apple bring up in their defense for not allowing third party app stores or side loading, should not shield them from more competition in iOS. As by her ...... "I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load."...., part of her quote.
My best guess for her stating ...... ".... I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load." is that @gatorguy must have flooded her with comments on how Google Android is just as safe to use, as iOS. And Android allows third party app stores and side loading.
But Google themselves thinks different.
Even Google acknowledges that third party app stores and side loading present privacy and security issues with Android. Which is why they disable side loading and third party app stores for Android users enrolled in their high security "Advance Protection Program". There would be no need for such a program if Google thought ... ".....customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload.".
So far, even "Google Protect" is not even close to providing the privacy and security, that just disallowing third party app stores and side loading, can provide.
crowley said: You've extrapolated massively. There's no insinuation of proof at all.
Nope. Vestager is definitely insinuating that Apple's privacy/security features are themselves harming competition. That's all the EU has left. Spotify crapped the bed when they had to produce the receipts per their "harm" claims and consumer software prices on iOS are significantly cheaper than Windows/Mac and equivalent to Android.
No she isn't. She's suggesting that Apple are attempting to use privacy and security as a shield from accusations of anti-competitive practices. That the App Store may provide privacy and security for its users, but that isn't in itself a get out clause for being subject to antitrust law. Vestager and the EU's position is that providing privacy and security must come within the framework of fair competition.
And that's fair enough. Apple being committed to privacy and security is great, but it doesn't confer immunity.
"I think privacy and security is of paramount importance to everyone," Vestager said. "The important thing here is, of course, that it's not a shield against competition, because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload."
If one takes the context of the whole quote, then what Vestager is saying is that Apple should not be using privacy and security as an excuse to not allow third party apps stores or side loading, in iOS (in other words ..... competition). She thinks that privacy and security are of paramount importance and might even believe that they can be a valid excuse for Apple to not allow third party app stores and side loading, BUT she doesn't think that third party app stores or side loading presents a threat to the privacy and security of iOS users.
She is not suggesting that Apple is attempting to use privacy and security as a reason to be anti-competitive. (Shielding against competition, is not the same as being anti-competitive. At least not in the US.) She actually thinks that allowing third party app stores and side loading will not present any privacy and security issues, for iOS users. Therefore, she thinks that the privacy and security issues that Apple bring up in their defense for not allowing third party app stores or side loading, should not shield them from more competition in iOS. As by her ...... "I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load."...., part of her quote.
My best guess for her stating ...... ".... I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load." is that @gatorguy must have flooded her with comments on how Google Android is just as safe to use, as iOS. And Android allows third party app stores and side loading.
But Google themselves thinks different.
Even Google acknowledges that third party app stores and side loading present privacy and security issues with Android. Which is why they disable side loading and third party app stores for Android users enrolled in their high security "Advance Protection Program". There would be no need for such a program if Google thought ... ".....customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload.".
So far, even "Google Protect" is not even close to providing the privacy and security, that just disallowing third party app stores and side loading, can provide.
When I replied to your original comment (which I bolded) it was this:
"So where's the evidence that the higher level of privacy and security on an iPhone is harmful to consumers?"
In your reply to that comment, it is this:
"Has the EU provided evidence that supports their statement that iOS is anticompetitive?"
To answer that, different question, we'll have to wait for the findings.
"The important thing here is, of course, that it's not a shield against competition, because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload."
That's the direct quote from Vestager. She is equating Apple's higher level of privacy/security vs Windows/Mac/Android to a "shield against competition". Her words, not mine. All of the focus is on the security aspect alone being equal to anticompetitive behavior. Note that Vestager doesn't make any mention of a specific BENEFIT to consumers with her statement. She doesn't claim alternate app stores or side loading will improve security for consumers. She doesn't claim that they'll lower prices for consumers either. Why? Because the EU already knows that they don't have any evidence that supports those kinds of claims. Windows/Mac/Android are not better at security. Windows/Mac/Android do not provide better prices for software.
So, my first quote and second quote speak to the same thing: the EU does think privacy/security on iOS is synonymous with harm to consumers and anticompetitive behavior. But they don't have any evidence to back it up.
She's not talking security or privacy. That's why she doesn't go very far into that terrain.
She's talking competition and basically saying Tim Cook is barking up the wrong tree by bringing those aspects up IMO.
At the same time she is saying that security and privacy are paramount because they are, but not at the cost of competition.
Comments
That said, consumers can present complaints about anti competitive practices equally as easily as businesses.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=LEGISSUM:l26111
I have used those channels in the past.
Do desktop computers generally offer better software prices for consumers than the iPhone? No. Do Android phones offer generally better software prices for consumers? No. So where's the evidence that the higher level of privacy and security on an iPhone is harmful to consumers? The EU hasn't really found any to date. Sure, Spotify claimed that iOS was forcing them to charge a higher price and putting them at a competitive disadvantage, but when they were required to provide their actual revenue info...that claim turned out to be false. Less than 1% of their revenue was actually subject to a commission, and even then it was 15% and not 30%. It's similar to Microsoft cheerleading the Epic lawsuit in the U.S. and then refusing to provide any actual numbers for their claims that Xbox hardware never made a profit. These companies aren't exactly reliable witnesses.
This lack of evidence for the anti competition claims is also the exact reason Congress in the U.S. is going with a market cap. It's an approach that doesn't need a court ruling on antitrust. It's a series of commerce bills instead. Business below the cap can continue per usual and business above the cap will potentially be restricted in some manner.
She isn't saying that security and privacy are harmful to consumers so no evidence is necessary.
She's saying that Apple should fall back on those aspects as a defence
Also, while the vote was 5 years ago, it only came into effect much more recently. It's not the vote I'm sad about, it's the effect of the vote.
Allowing a "legitimate interest" workaround is exactly the kind of loophole that would make the entire thing meaningless. I'm very glad they didn't do that.
So what is the EU left with? Trying to insinuate that Apple's privacy/security stance is somehow the "proof" that they're anticompetitive. EU has nothing else to show.
And that's fair enough. Apple being committed to privacy and security is great, but it doesn't confer immunity.
When I replied to your original comment (which I bolded) it was this:
"So where's the evidence that the higher level of privacy and security on an iPhone is harmful to consumers?"
In your reply to that comment, it is this:
"Has the EU provided evidence that supports their statement that iOS is anticompetitive?"
To answer that, different question, we'll have to wait for the findings.
They are not the same thing.
Apple is being investigated for possible anti competitive behavior. Vestager is saying that Apple shouldn't be using the argument of security and privacy to defend its position.
That's the direct quote from Vestager. She is equating Apple's higher level of privacy/security vs Windows/Mac/Android to a "shield against competition". Her words, not mine. All of the focus is on the security aspect alone being equal to anticompetitive behavior. Note that Vestager doesn't make any mention of a specific BENEFIT to consumers with her statement. She doesn't claim alternate app stores or side loading will improve security for consumers. She doesn't claim that they'll lower prices for consumers either. Why? Because the EU already knows that they don't have any evidence that supports those kinds of claims. Windows/Mac/Android are not better at security. Windows/Mac/Android do not provide better prices for software.
So, my first quote and second quote speak to the same thing: the EU does think privacy/security on iOS is synonymous with harm to consumers and anticompetitive behavior. But they don't have any evidence to back it up.
They aren't saying that security and privacy on iOS are synonymous with anticompetitive behaviour, they're saying that whether the system is secure and private is irrelevant to whether it is anticompetitive and shouldn't be part of the conversation. What may be the case is that Apple's approach to security and privacy has lead them down a path that is anticompetitive. But from Margarethe Vestager's perspective that needs to be judged on its anticompetitive nature, not on whether it's secure or private. She is very clear, security and privacy is not a shield. Doing right in one sense does not give you carte blanche to do wrong in another.
I think the "customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload" is a bit of a throwaway line and not very important to her stance. Probably not helpful either, she should probably avoid saying things like that.
If one takes the context of the whole quote, then what Vestager is saying is that Apple should not be using privacy and security as an excuse to not allow third party apps stores or side loading, in iOS (in other words ..... competition). She thinks that privacy and security are of paramount importance and might even believe that they can be a valid excuse for Apple to not allow third party app stores and side loading, BUT she doesn't think that third party app stores or side loading presents a threat to the privacy and security of iOS users.
She is not suggesting that Apple is attempting to use privacy and security as a reason to be anti-competitive. (Shielding against competition, is not the same as being anti-competitive. At least not in the US.) She actually thinks that allowing third party app stores and side loading will not present any privacy and security issues, for iOS users. Therefore, she thinks that the privacy and security issues that Apple bring up in their defense for not allowing third party app stores or side loading, should not shield them from more competition in iOS. As by her ...... "I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load."...., part of her quote.
My best guess for her stating ...... ".... I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load." is that @gatorguy must have flooded her with comments on how Google Android is just as safe to use, as iOS. And Android allows third party app stores and side loading.
But Google themselves thinks different.
Even Google acknowledges that third party app stores and side loading present privacy and security issues with Android. Which is why they disable side loading and third party app stores for Android users enrolled in their high security "Advance Protection Program". There would be no need for such a program if Google thought ... ".....customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload.".
https://androidcommunity.com/android-advanced-protection-will-block-directly-sideloading-apps-20200319/
So far, even "Google Protect" is not even close to providing the privacy and security, that just disallowing third party app stores and side loading, can provide.
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/google-play-protect-miserably-fails-android-protection-tests/ ;
She's talking competition and basically saying Tim Cook is barking up the wrong tree by bringing those aspects up IMO.
At the same time she is saying that security and privacy are paramount because they are, but not at the cost of competition.