Eh, I mean you’re right that more people will hear the accusation than the retraction, but I think everyone already knows and will continue to know that iPhones have excellent cameras. I wouldn’t be worried about the reputation of iPhone cameras.
That post was already being widely used to justify the fairly ludite views on image upscaling by the judge in the Rittenhouse trial for example.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/12/22778801/kyle-rittenhous...
That's throwing his own incorrect mistrust of the technology into things. It wasn't based on precedent or founded by rational examples.
He also didn't provide alternate means for video playback that he would trust. It's reductionist.
At the very least, a competent prosecution should have then pulled up content in VLC and said "the source code for zooming is here and verifiable"
Dangerous precedent works both ways, I don't know which effect will be stronger.