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.
That is not at all what she is saying. She is saying that she doesn't think that third party app stores and side loading present any issue with privacy and security and therefore is not an excuse that Apple should use to not allow third party app stores and side loading. She did not say nor even implied, that she was willing to sacrifice users privacy and security for the sake of competition.
She doesn't want to go very far with the privacy and security issues because she can not win using it. There is a mountain of evidence known as Android, that shows that customers do give up quite a bit of privacy and security, if third party app stores and side loading are allowed. The fact the she made such an ignorant and baseless statement like ..... "I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load.", shows that Apple is "barking up the right tree".
"At the same time she is saying that security and privacy are paramount because they are, but not at the cost of competition."
That is an oxymoron statement and she did not say that. If privacy and security are "paramount", then none of it should be sacrifice for the sake of "competition".
Paramount
adjective
more important than anything else; supreme.
If she knew the scope of how just how much third party app stores and side loading decreases privacy and security for the users, she might .... Think Different.
If she knew the scope of how just how much third party app stores and side loading decreases privacy and security for the users, she might .... Think Different.
She might, but I doubt she'd ease off on the competitive issues with a platform owner also gatekeeping the sole software store and profiting off a large proportion of transactions made within software on the platform.
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.
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.
EDIT: Oh gracious, that's an over 4 year old link! No wonder it gets a "page not found"
For what it's worth I was able to locate an article at some other site from 2020, who like you is quoting that older much older one as tho the nothing ever changed since " back then". Clickbait.. . The "failure" that author used as premise is a direct-line comparison to long-established anti-malware companies like McAfee or Symantec. Play Protect is not intended to be an antivirus program and never was.
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.
Apparently you don’t clear your browser crud often enough for these to irritate you. I clear mine often, so it’s almost every goddamned website, almost every goddamned visit.
I don’t usually side with tech geek rhetoric, but I think Margrethe Vestager does not have a full awareness of the depth of complexities in the potential consequences with the demand to allow third-party app installs or app stores. iOS devices aren’t desktop computers and that’s a good thing. They should stay much more like appliances than desktop computers.
In what ways will the OS need to be opened to allow third-party app installs, and how will it be compromised?
Who’s going to moderate a third-party App Store to ensure the same level of privacy & security? Apple themselves can’t even be bothered to do a great job, and they’re the ones with the most financial incentive to do it.
How many third-party app stores will be expected to avoid this particular criticism of Apple’s own systems? If any app can be installed, then does that negate needing third-party stores? How does install & uninstall get managed differently between the two without compromising the single path simplicity for current users?
There are reasons to go after Apple, but this is not one of them. Go after the endless expansion of subscriptions & services. Go after the diworsification. Go after the pricing. Mandate a percentage of post-consumer materials be used in new hardware & packaging (100% for packaging). Go after the competitor buyouts. Go after the missing quality-control on software...
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.
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.
EDIT: Oh gracious, that's an over 4 year old link! No wonder it gets a "page not found"
For what it's worth I was able to locate an article at some other site from 2020, who like you is quoting that older much older one as tho the nothing ever changed since " back then". Clickbait.. . The "failure" that author used as premise is a direct-line comparison to long-established anti-malware companies like McAfee or Symantec. Play Protect is not intended to be an antivirus program and never was.
Here's a more recent views. Only 2 years old, by the same people. And consider this, over half of Android users are on versions that are 2 or more years old.
For sure Google Play Protect is getting better, considering it's free. But the bottom line is that in order to make third party app stores and side-loading inherently safer on Android, Google needs to have this in place, along with being able to not allow download from unknown sources. And even with these in place, it's still not enough for Vestager to claim that ..... ".... customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load.". If Google thought that, Android would be more of a malware magnet, than it is now. Going by the nearly 2B malware that Google Play Protect did manage to catch and prevent from installing, in just 2019. Or maybe this article is the ..... clickbait
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.
Apparently you don’t clear your browser crud often enough for these to irritate you. I clear mine often, so it’s almost every goddamned website, almost every goddamned visit.
But the people in general who don’t understand security and privacy issues in this technical context and how it affect them they won’t choose very carefully then. And those who understands and knows are very happy that in this case, as it is now the choice is already made when they buy a product running iOS or iPad OS.
And hey, why would Apple not use privacy and security concerns in the competition? I think they should use it and use it a lot. This case just get dumber and dumber and I can’t understand why some people don’t see clear of what is going on in the world. And on top of that, never expect a politician to say: ”Ok, I admit I was wrong”. The Dunning Kruger effect combined with some politicians is a serious issue.
And again, look into the dominant position of Microsoft in many areas out there. There we have a bigger issue where dominance has falsely got the name standard and standard is now used as an excuse for not letting users use other platforms although they do their best work on those.
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.
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.
EDIT: Oh gracious, that's an over 4 year old link! No wonder it gets a "page not found"
For what it's worth I was able to locate an article at some other site from 2020, who like you is quoting that older much older one as tho the nothing ever changed since " back then". Clickbait.. . The "failure" that author used as premise is a direct-line comparison to long-established anti-malware companies like McAfee or Symantec. Play Protect is not intended to be an antivirus program and never was.
Here's a more recent views. Only 2 years old, by the same people. And consider this, over half of Android users are on versions that are 2 or more years old.
For sure Google Play Protect is getting better, considering it's free. But the bottom line is that in order to make third party app stores and side-loading inherently safer on Android, Google needs to have this in place, along with being able to not allow download from unknown sources. And even with these in place, it's still not enough for Vestager to claim that ..... ".... customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load.". If Google thought that, Android would be more of a malware magnet, than it is now. Going by the nearly 2B malware that Google Play Protect did manage to catch and prevent from installing, in just 2019. Or maybe this article is the ..... clickbait
Not mentioned in any of those links (because they aren't using recent info less than 2 years old) is the subsequent Google partnership with traditional malware-prevention tech companies like ESET, Lookout, and Zimperium. Not that it necessarily matters to Apple and app security.
So then your argument would be that Apple would not be capable of either securing their operating system or mitigating potential damage from malware if alternate app sources were permitted? If that's not your point not then why is what Google has done to protect Android users from app malware pertinent to what Apple would be able to do? In your opinion isn't Apple even more capable than Google when it comes to addressing software weaknesses?
IMO Apple is not being totally forthright and injecting an element of fear and uncertainty, sowing doubt that installing apps will be safe if Apple is not allowed to maintain their marketplace unopposed Why else for Apple to take a somewhat extreme position and throw Mac security under the bus, a market where Apple doesn't earn much from app sales? Sacrificing a lamb to protect the cows?
So if you believe Apple to be incapable of further developing a system (they're part way there already) to protect users from malware no matter the app source just say so.
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.
That is not at all what she is saying. She is saying that she doesn't think that third party app stores and side loading present any issue with privacy and security and therefore is not an excuse that Apple should use to not allow third party app stores and side loading. She did not say nor even implied, that she was willing to sacrifice users privacy and security for the sake of competition.
She doesn't want to go very far with the privacy and security issues because she can not win using it. There is a mountain of evidence known as Android, that shows that customers do give up quite a bit of privacy and security, if third party app stores and side loading are allowed. The fact the she made such an ignorant and baseless statement like ..... "I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load.", shows that Apple is "barking up the right tree".
"At the same time she is saying that security and privacy are paramount because they are, but not at the cost of competition."
That is an oxymoron statement and she did not say that. If privacy and security are "paramount", then none of it should be sacrifice for the sake of "competition".
Paramount
adjective
more important than anything else; supreme.
If she knew the scope of how just how much third party app stores and side loading decreases privacy and security for the users, she might .... Think Different.
Your last paragraph opened a new universe for you. The reason she can't get into the details of security and privacy in the context of this case is because it is a moving target. Apple's could easily get worse and Android's could get better. Also security isn't 'tangible' in this context. There are too many variables involved. Beginning with the users themselves. That isn't at the centre of things here. Apple's anti competitive actions are.
Competition, on the other hand, can be nailed down fairly hard and easily. IMO, it is crystal clear what she is saying and it is what I pointed out earlier.
In fact, just take a look at what Reuters interpretated:
"EU's Vestager warns Apple against using privacy, security to limit competition"
There is no oxymoron here because there is a huge amount of interpretation involved. More secure stores than the App Store might already exist. I know you don't accept this idea as you have already stated as much. What knowledge di you have if Android app stores? Is Apple's privacy the best it can be? I say this because it obviously wasn't, out of the gate. If it had been, little would have changed up to now. Yet, Apple would have (and probably has) said in the past that both aspects were 'paramount'. In fact, it seems that the example given for your definition (assuming it came from where I think it did) is telling:
"The education of the children is paramount"
That is actually a good example as education obviously wouldn't override the importance of the mental and physical health and well being of the children in the bigger picture.
You need to understand how words are used, not only their dictionary definitions. After all, what defines a word is its usage in context and all dictionaries will eventually reflect that. It doesn't work the other way around.
She is not a native English speaker. I see no problems in her usage of paramount as long as the context is taken into account. From an interview with a long and thorough technical investigation as a backdrop, you should be able to contextualise a couple of live quotes clearly.
Everyone here is interpreting her words but you are stating you know what she wanted to say. I don't see how you can do that from the few words that were quoted.
The point here is that Apple has been accused of anti-competitive practices. Apple has said that those practices provide users with privacy and security. Margaret is saying that such claims cannot be used as a shield.
crowley said: 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.
Vestager is capable of using the term "irrelevant" if that's what she means. Instead, she uses the phrase "shield against competition" when referencing Apple's security and privacy approach. Then she immediately references alternate app stores and side loading without referencing any actual advantage to them for consumers. All she says is that she personally believes consumers could still have some level of privacy/security with those features. That's not an antitrust or anticompetitive argument at all. That's just a preference for the Windows/Mac/Android distribution model.
I think the EU is changing strategy now. They tried emphasizing the "high rates of commission" etc. and it blew up in their face. Spotify completely misrepresented how it's revenue was generated and accomplished nothing more than proving iOS customers DO know how to pay for things on the internet. They buy Spotify subscriptions. They buy Netflix subscriptions. They buy ebooks. They subscribe to gaming services. And on and on. So the EU is now going to try and lead with the "shield against competition" stuff and try to get people to buy into the idea that not allowing side loading or alternate app stores is the actual antitrust activity. Because that's all the EU has left. There's no way they can argue that Windows/Mac/Android provide better prices, services, or security because there isn't any evidence of it.
crowley said: 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.
Vestager is capable of using the term "irrelevant" if that's what she means. Instead, she uses the phrase "shield against competition" when referencing Apple's security and privacy approach.
I'm very sure she could have used that word, and would have in a different conversation on a different day. She used other words that mean the same thing. She is saying that Apple shouldn't use privacy and security as a shield against accusations of anti-competitive behaviour, directly implying that privacy and security are irrelevant considerations (or at the very least, not overriding considerations that can act as a shield) to anti-competitive behaviour.
I'm not sure what it is that's proving so hard to grasp here.
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 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."
In case you don't understand what she was saying it's that privacy and security and having access to 3rd party app stores does not need to be mutually exclusive in her opinion.
If people can use another App Store or side load they are giving up both privacy and security. This has already been demonstrated thousands of times over. Vestager sounds almost as deceitful as one former US president that will remain nameless!
crowley said: I'm very sure she could have used that word, and would have in a different conversation on a different day. She used other words that mean the same thing. She is saying that Apple shouldn't use privacy and security as a shield against accusations of anti-competitive behaviour, directly implying that privacy and security are irrelevant considerations to anti-competitive behaviour.
If privacy/security is irrelevant, why did Vestager specifically mention privacy/security in regards to alternate app stores and side loading? It should be irrelevant both ways, yet she makes a point of providing her opinion about privacy/security still being available with alternate app stores and side loading as if that has relevance.
crowley said: I'm very sure she could have used that word, and would have in a different conversation on a different day. She used other words that mean the same thing. She is saying that Apple shouldn't use privacy and security as a shield against accusations of anti-competitive behaviour, directly implying that privacy and security are irrelevant considerations to anti-competitive behaviour.
If privacy/security is irrelevant, why did Vestager specifically mention privacy/security in regards to alternate app stores and side loading? It should be irrelevant both ways, yet she makes a point of providing her opinion about privacy/security still being available with alternate app stores and side loading as if that has relevance.
It’s useless to attempt to have a discussion with him. He only digs his heels in further and will not relent on whatever is pro Vestager.
crowley said: I'm very sure she could have used that word, and would have in a different conversation on a different day. She used other words that mean the same thing. She is saying that Apple shouldn't use privacy and security as a shield against accusations of anti-competitive behaviour, directly implying that privacy and security are irrelevant considerations to anti-competitive behaviour.
If privacy/security is irrelevant, why did Vestager specifically mention privacy/security in regards to alternate app stores and side loading? It should be irrelevant both ways, yet she makes a point of providing her opinion about privacy/security still being available with alternate app stores and side loading as if that has relevance.
As I already said, I think that was an unhelpful thing to add.
crowley said: I'm very sure she could have used that word, and would have in a different conversation on a different day. She used other words that mean the same thing. She is saying that Apple shouldn't use privacy and security as a shield against accusations of anti-competitive behaviour, directly implying that privacy and security are irrelevant considerations to anti-competitive behaviour.
If privacy/security is irrelevant, why did Vestager specifically mention privacy/security in regards to alternate app stores and side loading? It should be irrelevant both ways, yet she makes a point of providing her opinion about privacy/security still being available with alternate app stores and side loading as if that has relevance.
It’s useless to attempt to have a discussion with him. He only digs his heels in further and will not relent on whatever is pro Vestager.
What a strange thing to say. I'm not being especially pro Vestager here, just making the point that she's not saying what @foregoneconclusion thinks she's saying.
Comments
She doesn't want to go very far with the privacy and security issues because she can not win using it. There is a mountain of evidence known as Android, that shows that customers do give up quite a bit of privacy and security, if third party app stores and side loading are allowed. The fact the she made such an ignorant and baseless statement like ..... "I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load.", shows that Apple is "barking up the right tree".
"At the same time she is saying that security and privacy are paramount because they are, but not at the cost of competition."
That is an oxymoron statement and she did not say that. If privacy and security are "paramount", then none of it should be sacrifice for the sake of "competition".
Paramount
If she knew the scope of how just how much third party app stores and side loading decreases privacy and security for the users, she might .... Think Different.
EDIT: Oh gracious, that's an over 4 year old link! No wonder it gets a "page not found"
For what it's worth I was able to locate an article at some other site from 2020, who like you is quoting that older much older one as tho the nothing ever changed since " back then". Clickbait.. .
The "failure" that author used as premise is a direct-line comparison to long-established anti-malware companies like McAfee or Symantec. Play Protect is not intended to be an antivirus program and never was.
In what ways will the OS need to be opened to allow third-party app installs, and how will it be compromised?
Who’s going to moderate a third-party App Store to ensure the same level of privacy & security? Apple themselves can’t even be bothered to do a great job, and they’re the ones with the most financial incentive to do it.
How many third-party app stores will be expected to avoid this particular criticism of Apple’s own systems? If any app can be installed, then does that negate needing third-party stores? How does install & uninstall get managed differently between the two without compromising the single path simplicity for current users?
There are reasons to go after Apple, but this is not one of them. Go after the endless expansion of subscriptions & services. Go after the diworsification. Go after the pricing. Mandate a percentage of post-consumer materials be used in new hardware & packaging (100% for packaging). Go after the competitor buyouts. Go after the missing quality-control on software...
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/google-enhances-google-play-protect-on-android-but-is-it-enough/
Here's a couple of more recent ones.
https://www.tomsguide.com/reviews/google-play-protect
https://www.techradar.com/news/google-play-protect-performs-miserably-in-android-protection-tests
For sure Google Play Protect is getting better, considering it's free. But the bottom line is that in order to make third party app stores and side-loading inherently safer on Android, Google needs to have this in place, along with being able to not allow download from unknown sources. And even with these in place, it's still not enough for Vestager to claim that ..... ".... customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load.". If Google thought that, Android would be more of a malware magnet, than it is now. Going by the nearly 2B malware that Google Play Protect did manage to catch and prevent from installing, in just 2019. Or maybe this article is the ..... clickbait
https://security.googleblog.com/2020/03/how-google-play-protect-kept-users-safe.html ;
So then your argument would be that Apple would not be capable of either securing their operating system or mitigating potential damage from malware if alternate app sources were permitted? If that's not your point not then why is what Google has done to protect Android users from app malware pertinent to what Apple would be able to do? In your opinion isn't Apple even more capable than Google when it comes to addressing software weaknesses?
IMO Apple is not being totally forthright and injecting an element of fear and uncertainty, sowing doubt that installing apps will be safe if Apple is not allowed to maintain their marketplace unopposed Why else for Apple to take a somewhat extreme position and throw Mac security under the bus, a market where Apple doesn't earn much from app sales? Sacrificing a lamb to protect the cows?
So if you believe Apple to be incapable of further developing a system (they're part way there already) to protect users from malware no matter the app source just say so.
Competition, on the other hand, can be nailed down fairly hard and easily. IMO, it is crystal clear what she is saying and it is what I pointed out earlier.
In fact, just take a look at what Reuters interpretated:
"EU's Vestager warns Apple against using privacy, security to limit competition"
There is no oxymoron here because there is a huge amount of interpretation involved. More secure stores than the App Store might already exist. I know you don't accept this idea as you have already stated as much. What knowledge di you have if Android app stores? Is Apple's privacy the best it can be? I say this because it obviously wasn't, out of the gate. If it had been, little would have changed up to now. Yet, Apple would have (and probably has) said in the past that both aspects were 'paramount'. In fact, it seems that the example given for your definition (assuming it came from where I think it did) is telling:
"The education of the children is paramount"
That is actually a good example as education obviously wouldn't override the importance of the mental and physical health and well being of the children in the bigger picture.
You need to understand how words are used, not only their dictionary definitions. After all, what defines a word is its usage in context and all dictionaries will eventually reflect that. It doesn't work the other way around.
She is not a native English speaker. I see no problems in her usage of paramount as long as the context is taken into account. From an interview with a long and thorough technical investigation as a backdrop, you should be able to contextualise a couple of live quotes clearly.
Everyone here is interpreting her words but you are stating you know what she wanted to say. I don't see how you can do that from the few words that were quoted.
The point here is that Apple has been accused of anti-competitive practices. Apple has said that those practices provide users with privacy and security. Margaret is saying that such claims cannot be used as a shield.
I think the EU is changing strategy now. They tried emphasizing the "high rates of commission" etc. and it blew up in their face. Spotify completely misrepresented how it's revenue was generated and accomplished nothing more than proving iOS customers DO know how to pay for things on the internet. They buy Spotify subscriptions. They buy Netflix subscriptions. They buy ebooks. They subscribe to gaming services. And on and on. So the EU is now going to try and lead with the "shield against competition" stuff and try to get people to buy into the idea that not allowing side loading or alternate app stores is the actual antitrust activity. Because that's all the EU has left. There's no way they can argue that Windows/Mac/Android provide better prices, services, or security because there isn't any evidence of it.
I'm not sure what it is that's proving so hard to grasp here.