My understanding is that Android does not have the widespread use of HW-based encryption that Apple does.

The requirements for Android 5.0 had to be relaxed and Android 6.0 is barely available.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/10/android-6-0-re-implem...

Windows desktop full-disk encryption means Bitlocker, which is basically breakable by anyone who can google stuff and buy the right firewire cable:

https://github.com/carmaa/inception

Note that this is the open source, made by one guy in his spare time version, so it has some caveats. But I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the three-letter agencies have their own, more capable version.

That is an disingenuous representation of how the attacks works. That attacks OPSEC, not the Bitlocker itself. Any full-disk encryption is "vulnerable", to this kind of attack.

The page even explains this:

https://github.com/carmaa/inception#awesome-but-why

https://github.com/carmaa/inception#unlock

Not really. Full disk encryption using Pointsec/other commercial offerings, or as you typically do it on Linux with LUKS+dmcrypt, asks for the passphrase before the OS has loaded any Firewire drivers. In which case a fully shut-down computer is not vulnerable to this attack, ie. you have protection against evil maids, thieves, FBI etc.

But with Bitlocker, it only requires a password at Windows login, and by then all the Firewire etc. drivers are up and running. So you have no protection for computers that are stolen/seized by law enforcement.

IIRC BitLocker with pre-boot authentication mitigates DMA attacks. Most Windows hardware doesn't come with FireWire or Thunderbolt ports nowadays. Microsoft recommends pre-boot auth for devices with DMA ports.

These are fair points. But for businesses in particular, it's a problem since many skip on (or are unaware of the need for) pre-boot auth, and business laptops still pack FW ports, if not on the laptop itself, then surely on the docking station.

Well then, that's pretty gross.

Maybe this whole thing will turn out to be a giant Streisand Effect that gets even more people using encryption and call out the companies who aren't doing a good job.

Part of apples winning strategy here is that they claim that they don't sell your data to advertizers. Google and MS are a different story. This means that Goolge/MS have a much bigger incentive to store your data in "the cloud" so that they can read it. As Apple has always claimed privacy as one of their features, by fighting this, they stick to that narrative.

It wasn't apples choice really. This is just the first time they've been asked in a public trial. Who knows how many times they (and others) have been asked in a FISA court.

remember that time TrueCrypt got hijacked by 3 letter agency and shutdown while recommending BitLocker? This makes clear Microsoft's willingness to cooperate.