I'm having trouble finding numbers, but I seriously doubt this. The reason that's true (or more likely true) for Microsoft, is Windows. The US gov't has massive site licenses for Windows and most of MS's software portfolio. Apple is used where in the US government? Some cell phones? A few public affairs offices that convinced their purchasing officer to buy a Mac Pro for video editing? Maybe some labs that wanted a unixy OS and, again, convinced their purchasing officer to buy a Mac Pro?

Per: http://investor.apple.com/secfiling.cfm?filingid=1193125-14-...

The bulk of Apple's revenue comes from outside the US. Perhaps the US government is their largest single customer (I still hold this is a dubious claim), but it is not essential to their continued existence. They would do just fine without those sales.

But remember, iPhones and MacBooks are quite popular everywhere, including US government procurements (e.g., https://37prime.wordpress.com/2012/08/05/nasa-mars-science-l...).

Your characterization ("Maybe some labs that wanted a unixy OS and, again, convinced their purchasing officer to buy a Mac Pro?") is a little off -- where I work, MBP's for laptop replenishments are treated exactly the same way as Windows systems, you just tick a different button on the order form.

As in, improve it.

Tim Cook is probably more popular than Obama (and surely is WRT this issue.) Apple is about a thousand times more popular than the NSA and blessed with almost infinitely deep pockets and a very, very good marketing team.

Not to mention the fact that most of the people who use computers and phones don't even live in the USA.

Tim Cook is responsible to his BoD and shareholders.

In comparison, Apple had a net income of ~50B in 2015.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Because Freedom Markets(tm), booyah!

Society can bumble along just fine without corporations. Corporations serve society.

Take away society, with its culture, laws, rules, regulations, courts, people, economy, markets, capital, etc, there can be no corporations.

The Shareholder Fallacy http://www.salon.com/2012/04/04/the_shareholder_fallacy/

Historically, corporations were understood to be responsible to a complex web of constituencies, including employees, communities, society at large, suppliers and shareholders. But in the era of deregulation, the interests of shareholders began to trump all the others. How can we get corporations to recognize their responsibilities beyond this narrow focus? It begins in remembering that the philosophy of putting shareholder profits over all else is a matter of ideology which is not grounded in American law or tradition. In fact, it is no more than a dangerous fad.

The Myth of Profit Maximizing

“It is literally – literally – malfeasance for a corporation not to do everything it legally can to maximize its profits. That’s a corporation’s duty to its shareholders.”

Since this sentiment is so familiar, it may come as a surprise that it is factually incorrect: In reality, there is nothing in any U.S. statute, federal or state, that requires corporations to maximize their profits. More surprising still is that, in this instance, the untruth was not uttered as propaganda by a corporate lobbyist but presented as a fact of life by one of the leading lights of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing, Sen. Al Franken. Considering its source, Franken’s statement says less about the nature of a U.S. business corporation’s legal obligations – about which it simply misses the boat – than it does about the point to which laissez-faire ideology has wormed its way into the American mind.

Laws and statutes don't enforce contracts. But courts do. You are trumpeting a theory I've heard many times before. It's creators lack a basic understanding of contract law or corporate organization. :ookup "shareholder derivative actions".

That almost certainly isn't the case. It is doubtful whether any other government organization cares about how they handle this case. Heck the FBI likely doesn't care as long as Apple doesn't do anything illegal.