> But if it's not as secure as an iPhone, it's unethical to claim otherwise. Do they, or is it a convenient claim to argue against? (honest question as I'm uns

> But if it's not as secure as an iPhone, it's unethical to claim otherwise. Do they, or is it a convenient claim to argue against? (honest question as I'm unsure about what they've claimed compared to iPhone specifically). By using volume and money spent as security metrics, it's quite easy to see why large players would be the best. For many, I suspect that principles drive some of their security assumptions. Companies that are opaque and do things behind users' backs are always going to appear less trustworthy than those that are open about their software and processes. While that doesn't translate to empirical security, it's enough of a paradigm shift from secretive approaches that I hope that facet alone helps them succeed.