I think the FBI might have made a mistake in picking a privacy fight with a gay, middle-aged Alabaman who controls the (2nd) most valuable company on Earth.
"and whose brand has taken a strong market stance on privacy and security."
I think people expect Microsoft and Google to cave given how cavalier they've been with user data, particularly of late, so seeing them back this is a bit two-faced.
However for Apple, this could have a significant impact on how their brand is perceived in the market depending on how high of a priority the "privacy/security" aspect is with their customer-base. They will fight this as hard as they can because those dollars aren't just wasted legal costs, they are building trust in the brand since they are putting their money where their mouth is.
Everything Apple has done over the past few years have really cemented their stance on privacy/security as a top priority, even when it means sacrificing some obvious revenue in the short-term.
A more accurate way to phrase this is I feel privacy and security are now a part of Apple's DNA much like design has been historically. It isn't just what the leadership stands for, it is what the company stands for. So when the question arises internally of "how far do we fight this," I'm left with the distinct impression that the immediate response is "as far as we need to in order to win."
- Apple hasn't chose privacy as brand strategy.
- Apple have chosen that strategy, and either loses or wins the trial
How different it's market share would look like considering that realistically it's largely a prestige brand, and the relatively low popularity of secure Android phones like the black phone ?
Apple would take a big PR hit from being associated with having unsecure phones, but that would also raise the question of whether other phones are any better (or worse). So it may be a wash all around.
The most valuable, not 2nd (as of right now.) Apple's market cap is 536.49B while Google is 485.79B
But both play a distant second fiddle to Saudi Aramco
I have to say if Saudi Aramco ever went on sale I would refuse to buy shares in it on principle.
Slight tangent - this is a variant of the Trolley Problem. I think it is sometimes morally good to do something slightly morally bad in order to acquire significant resources which can be used in a much more impactful way. For example, I don't think it's hard to argue that it is net morally good to make millions in slightly sleazy mid-2000s affiliate advertising and then give away most of the money to the Against Malaria Foundation.