[nickpsecurity]

I agree with you. They're not altruistic at all and the FBI thing was likely a PR campaign. They already have a number of behaviors that hurt users, app developers, and people in the supply chain. Far as security, the hardware engineers know there were attacks all the way through the stack that can be mitigated with certain tech that would probably cost them a few million or tens of million one-time development. They used a weak, 3rd-party approach instead. They never brought up these weaknesses, which all commercial smartphones have, during the debate. They still don't.

So, let's recap. Tim Cook, already hit due to privacy issue, might have a personal stake in improving privacy in tech. They knew their products weren't secure. I knew third parties that could've cracked it as they cracked IC's designed for security w/ obfuscation & tamper-resistance. As I predicted, the FBI ended up finding a group that cracked it for a low, six digits. That means the attack was easy with much of that probably profit.

That Apple knowingly leaves their devices insecure despite having money and incentive to knock out low-hanging fruit means all this talk is mostly branding. They're just differentiating themselves with appearance of greater security/privacy. Like they did when they said Mac's were immune to malware back in the day. Except this time, they actually deliver a good chunk of what they claim at least. I'll give them that. :)

[amazingman]

This completely ignores the potential financial downsides of multiple vectors of consequences in the FBI case. For example:

- non-technical (i.e. most) people interpreting the situation as "Apple protects terrorists"

- provoking the creation of legislation that would impose backdoor requirements on their software

- potentially extreme financial consequences if the court were to take a hard-line pro-FBI stance (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-laws...)

Again, the refusal to admit that it is possible for a company to behave altruistically in the face of clear evidence is simply dogmatism.

[nickpsecurity]

I'm not rejecting that the act itself might have been altruistic. It may have been. I've merely suggested it might not be, that there's no proof it is except incidentally, and certainly doesn't support them being altruistic as a company. The evidence I offer is all the selfish or abusive practices they do at various levels for maximizing their bottom line. That's for them not being altruistic. Far as acts appearing altruistic, image management and public relations are huge, money-making fields. The reason is that big companies often do something altruistic (or seemingly so) to get people to buy their stuff. Apple has a history of doing that, including with fake security ("Macs can't get viruses!"), to get people to buy their stuff. Given that history & insecurity of their phones, it's right to question whether them championing secure, private phones is a move to create or continue demand for their products given main competition is backed by a surveillance-oriented company. Clear differentiator available that might make them billions.

So, your claim is that a company with many selfish, damaging behaviors fought a legal battle over a case whose consequences might cost or make their shareholders billions depending on outcome and press. That... is consistent with rational, corporate self-interest. Their position also had social value to many & maybe the CEO even paused to do the greater good. That's dogma or speculation at this point given they usually don't focus on public benefit plus are still misleading people about their security & privacy for profit that continues to be hoarded also with few or no investments benefiting the public.

Apple's not altruistic: they're a company that schemed and sued their way into billions in profits. Taking a privacy stance might make them billions more. Or maybe they're just a good citizen on one topic on a few occasions. I'm leaning toward the former but still glad their self-interest and the publics' aligned with them following through on it. All I'm saying on this topic.