"To be fair - the only reason he's doing it is because it would cause a significant drop in sales for Apple devices."

That's not being fair at all. To say the only reason he is doing it is to protect iPhone sales doesn't speak to Tim's character. Of course he cares about sales, but he also cares about privacy.

It's definitely one of those rare times doing the right thing is also the most profitable thing.

Doing the right thing is very often (if not almost always) the most profitable thing. It's very difficult to make a business out of serving your customers poorly; if you disagree, give it a shot, and let me know how it turns out for you.

Serving your customers well is good for profit, but it is not the same thing as doing the right thing. Ad-based companies have customers and users. By serving their customers too well they easily screw over the users, with obnoxious and even unethical ads.

I've got a set a special hex screws and soldered on RAM to talk to you about...

That seems like the classic mistake of believing that the larger market assigns importance to repairability. I haven't seen much evidence this is true.

It's not necessarily the most profitable thing. Apple is picking a fight with a very big adversary. This takes some serious backbone.

I promise you, even a protracted legal battle is far cheaper than significant global sales losses.

Normally people on HN are much more skeptical about airy promises and assertions from corporate executives. I don't see what behavior on Tim Cook's part has indicated he's more to be trusted than anyone else.

Tim Cook was asked at a shareholder meeting to only do things that were profitable. He passionately rejected the idea, and named accessibility for the blind, environmental issues/climate change, and worker safety as areas where Apple invests because it's right, without considering the "bloody ROI". [1]

Compare to GE, which rolled over [2].

So I believe Mr Cook when he says his opposition to the FBI's request is rooted in a desire to do the right thing, and not the bottom line.

[1] http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/tim-cook-soundly-reje...

[2] http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-GE_Climate_Change_022114.ht...

Just to sharpen your comment, here's the summary of that interaction with a shareholder:

[Cook] didn't stop there, however, as he looked directly at the NCPPR representative and said, "If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock."

That's a very blunt statement that the immediate stock valuation is not Cook's only consideration.

Some people seem to have a hard time taking Cook at his word, but he's been quite consistent. This massive skepticism feels more like nostalgie de la boue than anything based in facts.

I think the only problem here is the strongness with which it is worded. It would be fair to say one of the reasons he is doing it is because of stock price, but to assert the only reason he is doing it is to cast him as completely uncaring about security and privacy. Without evidence to back this up (in this case, evidence that he doesn't care about security and privacy), it's an attack on his character. It's entirely possible his reasons include both, and that the moral sentiment behind the message is entirely truthful.

We should be careful about plainly stating what someone else's motivations are when it contradicts their own story.

Edit: s/it's/his reasons include/ for clarification.

He's an older gay man, I would be shocked if this didn't influence greatly his opinion in this realm. He's lived through some times that weren't too friendly to "his kind" that were open.

He's pretty much said so:

We still live in a world where all people are not treated equally. Too many people do not feel free to practice their religion or express their opinion or love who they choose. A world in which that information can make a difference between life and death. If those of us in positions of responsibility fail to do everything in our power to protect the right of privacy, we risk something far more valuable than money. We risk our way of life.

See pages such as http://qz.com/344661/apple-ceo-tim-cook-says-privacy-is-a-ma...

Growing up a target sure changes the way you look at everything.

Not more to be trusted than anyone else, perhaps. But the claim was, "the only reason he's doing it is because it would cause a significant drop in sales for Apple devices" (emphasis added). I can trust him no more than I trust anyone else, and still not be totally cynical as to his motives. They're mixed, they're not completely altruistic, but they're (probably) not completely mercenary, either.

"more to be trusted than anyone else"

Cook's responsibility is first and foremost to the stockholders, and secondarily to the customers. Decrypting the iPhone would seriously compromise the security of Apple's products, gravely damage the company's credibility, hurt sales, and drive the stock price down.

No CEO is going to take such a drastic step unless they are a craven, cowardly type who meekly obeys ask-for-the-sky demands from overbearing federal law enforcement types, and Cook surely did not rise to his current position by being a pushover.

That's not to say there won't be some kind of secret deal made behind closed doors, but secrets tend to get out. Apple would not be so foolish, I think. Yahoo? Microsoft? They just handed over the keys to their email to anyone who demanded it -- the Chinese government, the NSA -- but Apple has no history of this type of behavior. Surely Snowden would have revealed it if they had.

Why would it cause a significant drop? Where would those people go?

Not saying I necessarily agree (or disagree), but the premise is that right now iOS phones are the only ones that do security right, out of the box. They're worth the premium price for that feature. As soon as they no longer have that edge, there's no reason to choose them over any commodity Android device, so sales would drop as they lose their differentiating feature.

Honestly, I doubt that a significant number of people is buying the iPhone for its security features.

Yeah, I don't think so either. Just explaining the parent's line of reasoning.

Just like people buying Beats headphones for sound quality (they're not).

People that really care about security don't use smartphones.

Not that they're more intuitive to use, have a higher quality app ecosystem, and "just work" for most people.

They'd go to Android. Apple only has a significant share of mobile users in the USA. Most other countries they are losing (globally they have something like 8% vs Android's 85% market share).

>Most other countries they are losing (globally they have something like 8% vs Android's 85% market share).

I'm not sure this is true once you factor in price range. The general knowledge is a lot of those Android devices are sub-$250.

> Most other countries they are losing

Maybe by share of units shipped. By revenue share they dominate, and their margins are estimated to be very good.

You're probably right, but it's great to explain this decision in economic terms. It'll sink through to people who think privacy is only for "good" actors, and those who don't like the government hurting businesses.

Tim answers to shareholders. Shareholders look at the bottom line and not his character.

This is a good way to think about things skeptically, but to say it as though it is fact is misleading. Is it that unlikely that a business professional can frame his beliefs and knowledge in this domain in such a way to justify himself to the shareholders? Or are we all just too skeptical that people in power act against morality whenever easy or possible?

Shareholders, which includes Tim Cook, all get to choose what they care about. Humans have complex motivations.

Let's suppose you can see in to Tim Cook's heart and this is true.

So?

I understand wanting to know people's motivations, from both the perspective of predicting future action and just because we're nosy monkeys. But frankly, what's in Cook's heart doesn't matter. Actions do. And to date, in my view, he's done pretty much exactly the right thing on this issue all along.

Maybe he's defending customer privacy because he believes the Lizard People have religious objections to invading until all humans have Freedom of Math. It doesn't simply matter.

Being the vocal advocate to stand up to the gov't IS risky. The wording is carefully crafted to prevent spin damage (pro-terrorist, anti-law enforcement).

> the only reason he's doing it is because it would cause a significant drop in sales for Apple devices. People overseas would immediately stop buying because "The American government is listening", and that's assuming countries like China and Russia wouldn't ban them outright.

That hasn't happened with other devices or earlier iPhones that aren't as secure.