And if they do exist, Google's able to hide them, because they set the defaults on their devices. So even though their privacy practices are quite terrible for most people, there's no real pressure to change it because the alternatives don't really exist. So they have a massive advantage already because users don't change the defaults. Today, Google controls the Android operating system, which is used by the majority of people, and they can preload all their applications as a default on your user devices. The same is true for other services that we offer.

If they had to compete, then competition would force privacy to be a selling point. If you're not happy with Facebook's privacy practices, what is the alternative social media that you can go to other than Facebook and Instagram? You don't really have that many options. If you look at the FTC lawsuit against Facebook, the theory is that privacy and competition are two sides of the same coin. It’s an attempt to monopolize privacy, which I don’t think makes any sense. What Apple is basically claiming is, you need to let us continue our use of app store practices because we're the only company in the world that can get privacy right.

How do you think about these potential conflicts? So if you make us increase competition, that will bring privacy down.” And then you see the flip side of the argument, which is when Apple or Google implements some new privacy feature that may hurt competitors.

Apple will say, “If you force us to allow more competition on the platform that we run, then that will reduce our control over the security and the privacy of the user. But a lot of people argue that privacy and competition are in conflict.

Your company has come out in support of reforms to strengthen antitrust enforcement.

Proton encrypted email