I agree that it's a marketing strategy, just 2 or so weeks ago Apple was getting huge amounts of bad press for their poor software development practices. So muc

I agree that it's a marketing strategy, just 2 or so weeks ago Apple was getting huge amounts of bad press for their poor software development practices. So much so that it had been consuming large publications. I don't take it as a coincidence that Apple released the statement to re-gain some of that lost face. However, I don't think it's a zero-sum game, and I think Apple is definitely doing the right thing by challenging this in the courts. Apple even stated in their press release that they had previously complied with close to 80 FBI requests to unlock devices in varying degrees, but they never disclosed the breadth of what they had done in those past requests. So why choose now? Timing is everything. I think both sides of the case are engaging in a lot of PR. The original FBI request for unlock looks pretty tame, unlock ONLY that device, disable ONLY a software protection that would delete files on failed attempts. I think the best way to compare it to is physical objects so we can get the software pieces out of the way and reason with it a bit better. Would it be within the FBI's power to ask a Safe-maker to disable a mechanical security measure on a safe that destroyed the contents of the safe when the combination was entered incorrectly after a specific number of attempts, and the FBI had no other way to obtain entry to it? I'm not sure how far that analogy gets you or what the laws actually are, but the only way to actually get them changed is to challenge them.