3 ms·
> They absolutely would not have. Perhaps not. But Apple absolutely benefited from the overwhelmingly positive press coverage it received as a result of their
by mcone 9y ago
> They absolutely would not have.
Perhaps not. But Apple absolutely benefited from the overwhelmingly positive press coverage it received as a result of their decision to oppose the FBI. And when the FBI withdrew their request, Apple looked like the winner. So yes, I do believe they opposed the FBI in that instance to strengthen their brand.
- JumpCrisscross 9y agoPractically all my non-technical friends required several conversations to understand why Apple did what it did in the San Bernardino case. On one side you have a company refusing to unlock a mass shooter's phone. On the other side you have an abstract discussion about rights and technology. Guess which one appeals to the broader denominator.
- Clubber 9y agoTrump called for a boycott on Apple because of that, and that was when he was somewhat credible. It was a bad short term play financially, but I believe it was a good long term play. Apple plays the long game, one of the few public companies that still do. What they bought is that I believe Apple implements more security and privacy measures in their phone than any of the competition, and actively improve it as a priority. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/19/politics/donald-trump-apple-boycott/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/19/politics/donald-trump-apple-bo... Remember this document? Apple was the last company to be subverted either willingly nor not. I'll bet it pissed Cook the hell of that Apple was even on this list. I believe they completely revamped their cloud architecture after that. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/images/prism-slide-5.jpg http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-...