Or, more pessimistically, they couldn't get Apple Maps, Safari, Siri working well with big data so they hobbled them and claimed it was for a secure experience.

This comment only makes sense if you accept the premise that the working well with big data is more valuable than a secure experience.

I would take the bet that something that provides direct revenue incentives is worth more than something that only an admittedly vocal minority of users even care about, let alone might spend more for.

Isn't Apple's entire business model selling to a minority of users who are willing to spend more for their products?

It's not self-evident that the minority of users who care about privacy is related to the minority of users who prefer Apple products.

I see, so the pessimistic view you suggested above is that Apple has had such remarkable success selling to its subset of the market in spite of its inability to integrate big data into its products. This could be true, though it seems a bit less likely than a more direct explanation that Apple is selling its customers what they prefer.

I mostly only own Apple stuff because of the privacy reasons (and that their are the only company which got scrolling animations/feel right)

When the standard of “well” is Google, who has very much data indeed, that’s not a farfetched premise.

Well, are they orthogonal, or aren't they?

I think I should have used a different word than secure exprerienc. Maybe sacrifice for security.

Although, I don't disagree with your statement. Considering how they seem to be attempting to catch up with ML projects and maybe it wasn't as emphasized in Apple's culture that could be it.

It seems like the AI so far has been powered by acquisitions and they are playing catch up.